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 and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it returns active subscriptions only (unless include_inactive is set), and it discloses the exact fields returned. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's scope and output behavior.
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 two sentences: first states the purpose and return fields, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core action.
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 lacking an output schema, the description lists all return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), so the agent knows the response shape. It also covers the optional parameter's behavior. For a simple read-only list tool, this is complete.
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?
The only parameter (include_inactive) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description implicitly references the parameter by saying 'active subscriptions,' and the schema's description is sufficient. Baseline 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 verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also lists the return fields (id, type, params, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe. This is specific and unambiguous.
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 gives concrete usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It implies the tool is a read-only precursor to subscribe/unsubscribe, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke 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.
Many tools are clearly from distinct domains (Pexels media, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, utility), but within each domain there is significant overlap (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research, or numerous polymarket tools). Detailed descriptions help differentiate, but some tools could still be confused.
Naming conventions vary: some tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others are single-word (photo, video), and some mix patterns (photo_curated vs photo_search). The Pexels subset is consistent, but the overall set includes tools from other ecosystems with different styles.
With 38 tools, the set is bloated for a Pexels server. Only 8 tools are actually Pexels-related; the rest are Pipeworx data query, Polymarket betting, and utility tools. This mismatch makes the count inappropriate for the stated server purpose.
For the Pexels domain, the tool set covers search, fetch, and collections for both photos and videos, which is adequate. The unrelated tools add bloat but don't create gaps in the Pexels functionality. Minor missing features like uploads or editorial content are not critical.