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 read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return field set and that the operation is scoped to the caller's subscriptions, including the implicit default of active-only. This goes beyond the annotation coverage.
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 sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. No filler or redundancy, every word contributes to understanding.
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 plus schema and annotations provide a complete picture. The return fields are listed, usage guidance is given, and the parameter is documented. No output schema exists, so no omission there.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter include_inactive is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the 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 opens with 'List the caller's active subscriptions,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It also lists the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe.
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?
Provides clear context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies appropriate use cases and contrasts with subscribe/unsubscribe actions, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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 serve overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all query Pipeworx data in similar ways. Polymarket tools also heavily overlap. This leads to ambiguity for an agent trying to select the right tool.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check), all lowercase (feed, forget), and underscore-separated verbs (ask_pipeworx_grounded, list_subscriptions). No consistent pattern is followed.
With 32 tools, the server feels overloaded for its stated purpose of RSS-to-JSON conversion. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., prediction markets, entity profiles, memory) making the scope too broad for a focused server.
The tool set has notable gaps: only one RSS-related tool (feed), and missing basic operations like creating or updating entities. The heavy focus on Pipeworx and Polymarket leaves the core domain underserved.