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?
With annotations already marking this as readOnly and non-destructive, the description adds behavioral context by specifying the scope (caller's subscriptions) and enumerating the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It also clarifies that inactive subscriptions are excluded by default, matching the include_inactive parameter.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides return details and use guidance. No wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action, return fields, and usage context. It's sufficiently complete for its complexity, though it could explicitly mention the relationship with subscribe/unsubscribe tools for full 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% with the include_inactive parameter having a full description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'the caller's active subscriptions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on the read-only listing aspect.
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 explicitly states when to use it: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. This gives clear use cases and implies alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe), though it stops short of explicitly naming them.
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 have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are nearly identical, several prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar territory, and research/verification tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) blur together. The three sanctions tools are distinct, but the rest of the set creates frequent misselection risk.
All tool names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun ordering varies unpredictably (expectation vs entity_profile vs sanctions_screen vs scan_dependency). There is no dominant pattern like verb_noun, though names are readable.
With 34 tools, the server is over-scoped, especially given its narrow 'Sanctions Screening' title. Many tools are duplicative (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx; scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check), and the bulk are unrelated to the stated purpose. The count feels bloated.
The three sanctions tools (screen, entry, lists) cover the core read-only workflow well, but the server is mislabeled: most of the 34 tools are generic data/Pipeworx features unrelated to sanctions. For the broad data domain the set is fairly complete, but for the apparent 'Sanctions Screening' purpose it is both over- and under-scoped, with no bulk screening or list management.