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, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it lists 'active subscriptions' and details the return fields, but does not describe any potential quirks such as pagination or authorization requirements. This is adequate, but not more than minimal.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and return fields, the second gives usage context. It is front-loaded and efficiently earns its place.
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 provides sufficient context. It explicitly lists all returned fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, and the annotations cover safety behavior. The tool is straightforward to invoke correctly.
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 schema already provides a full description for the single parameter (include_inactive), and schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' reinforces the default behavior, but does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 identifies the verb (List), the resource (the caller's active subscriptions), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe through its focus on reviewing existing subscriptions.
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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It implies alternatives (subscribe for adding, unsubscribe for canceling) but does not explicitly name them or state exclusions.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answering questions with slight differences. Also, entity_profile and compare_entities both retrieve company data, and the multitude of Polymarket tools can be confusing. However, many tools have distinct use-cases, so the ambiguity is moderate.
Tool names mix consistent patterns (e.g., get_air_quality, get_apod) with less predictable ones (e.g., pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research). Some follow verb_noun, others are noun_verb or just noun. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
With 34 tools, the server feels overloaded for a 'science' domain. Many tools are dedicated to prediction markets (Polymarket) and finance, which seem tangential. The count could be reduced by merging similar query tools or removing domain-specific betting tools to better fit the scientific theme.
While the server covers a broad range of data sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.), it lacks core scientific tools for physics, chemistry, or biology. The few science-themed tools (get_apod, get_earthquakes) are minor. The set feels incomplete for a dedicated science server, with emphasis on finance and betting instead.