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 provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. Description adds return field details but no additional behavioral traits like pagination.
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 efficient sentences: first covers purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary 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?
Covers purpose, output fields, and usage. Missing output schema is not critical for a simple list. Could mention scope (caller's subscriptions) already included.
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 sole parameter include_inactive is well-documented in the schema. Description adds no further meaning; schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3.
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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. Does not list alternatives but provides clear context.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and among the Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.
Tool names mix conventions: snake_case is predominant, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some tools have 'septa_' prefix, but the majority do not follow a predictable structure. Naming is inconsistent across the set, though subgroups have some consistency.
With 36 tools, the count is high. The server name 'Septa' suggests a focused transit server, but the tool set covers transit, data access, and prediction markets, making it overly broad. The number is borderline appropriate for a general-purpose server but misaligned with the name.
The transit domain is well-covered with alerts, positions, schedules, and train views. The data access and prediction market tools also cover their domains comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated weather tool), but overall the tool set provides a wide range of capabilities.