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=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the caller scope and the exact fields returned, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second lists return fields, and the third gives practical usage. No waste or redundancy.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains return values (since there is no output schema), mentions the scope, and provides usage guidance, while annotations handle safety attributes.
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%, with the only parameter (include_inactive) already well-described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: "List the caller's active subscriptions." It also lists the exact return fields and distinguishes its scope (caller's own subscriptions) from potential siblings like list_subtaxa.
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 description provides explicit usage context: "Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel." This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.
The tool set mixes general-purpose Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with only three paleontology-specific tools (find_fossils, get_taxon, list_subtaxa). Multiple similar 'ask_pipeworx' variants further blur distinctions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right tool without deep domain knowledge.
Tool names are mostly in snake_case and somewhat descriptive, but the naming conventions vary widely: imperative verbs (find_fossils), interrogative (suggest_questions), and nouns (recent_alerts). The presence of multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants with inconsistent suffixes (beta, grounded) adds confusion.
With 34 tools, the server is oversized for its claimed paleontology focus. The vast majority of tools are unrelated to Paleobiology, making the server feel more like a general-purpose data API than a specialized paleontology tool. A focused server should have a smaller, targeted set.
For the Paleobiology Database purpose, the coverage is severely lacking: only three tools are directly relevant (find_fossils, get_taxon, list_subtaxa). Missing essential operations like searching taxa by name, retrieving occurrences by location, or accessing collections data. The tool set is not a coherent interface for the domain.