list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by noting that only active subscriptions are returned by default and that include_inactive can include cancelled ones, which is useful behavioral context beyond the safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and key fields, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields. The single optional parameter is simple. The tool is straightforward and the description fully covers its functionality and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter fully described). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameter; it merely reiterates the default behavior. A score of 3 is appropriate as per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), specifies return fields (id, type, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on review and retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The explicit phrase 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel' provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not identify specific alternatives beyond the named siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the multiple 'ask' variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, but there is a mix of verb-first (e.g., ask_pipeworx, fetch_indicator) and noun-first (e.g., ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage) patterns. Consistent style but varied structure.
33 tools is excessive for a coherent set. The server covers diverse domains (data lookup, betting, memory, subscriptions, web generation, package scanning) without a clear unifying theme, making it feel like a collection of utilities rather than a focused tool surface.
Core data retrieval and research capabilities are well-covered, but there are notable gaps such as lack of data update tools for OWID and no direct visualization. Additionally, the betting tools are extensive while other areas like entity editing are missing.