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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds worthwhile behavioral detail beyond that, including the scope (caller's subscriptions), the default active-only filter, and the specific fields returned. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.
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: the first states the main function, the second lists return fields, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence contributes value without 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 list tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return format, and use case. The schema fully handles parameter semantics, so nothing important is missing.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (include_inactive) with a clear description and default value. The description only reinforces the active-only default by saying 'active subscriptions' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate under full schema coverage.
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 action ('List') and resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and also enumerates the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This differentiates it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which perform different actions.
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 implies when to use the tool and indirectly points to alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe), though it does not name them explicitly 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 ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are three variants of the same router — and the beta variant is explicitly stated to be identical to the stable one right now, making mis-selection nearly inevitable. The six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have subtly overlapping boundaries where an agent could easily grab the wrong one.
Nearly all tools use snake_case with a clear verb_noun or noun_compound shape (get_company_facts, resolve_entity, recent_changes, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations: the bare-verb memory trio (remember/recall/forget), the brand-style ask_pipeworx* naming, and a mix of verb-first vs. entity-first ordering, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.
34 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, but the server's actual scope is enormous — a universal structured-data gateway, prediction-market suite, memory system, subscription system, and utility tools. However, the count feels inflated by genuine redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the polymarket cluster could plausibly be consolidated into fewer tools.
Each sub-domain has strong lifecycle coverage: entity resolution (resolve_entity, search_companies), company analysis (get_company_facts/filings, entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities), full CRUD for both memory and subscriptions, and an exhaustively covered prediction-market domain (research, edges, arb, fill risk, tracking, cross-venue). Minor gaps exist — there's no direct single-filing document fetch tool (search_within implies fetching via the gateway but no explicit getter), and the AI-visibility tools lack historical tracking — but these are workaround-able rather than blocking.