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 indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description adds that it returns specific fields and mentions the include_inactive parameter, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 states purpose and return fields, second provides usage guidance. No redundancy or 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return fields, and use cases. Output schema is absent but return fields are listed. Annotations handle safety. Complete.
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 one optional boolean parameter. The description reinforces the parameter's effect (include inactive) but adds no new semantic detail 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 states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource. It also enumerates return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This distinguishes 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?
The description advises using this tool 'before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.
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 family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) has blurry boundaries — ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today — and the six Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.) all operate in the opportunity-detection space. Extremely detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong variant.
Snake_case is used throughout and the polymarket_* and pipeworx_* clusters are internally consistent, but the set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, news, places) roughly evenly. The 'beta' suffix on a stable production tool and the adjective-noun 'deep_research' add further inconsistency.
At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold, and the count is padded with redundancy: three near-identical ask_pipeworx variants, ai_visibility_check wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, and six overlapping Polymarket tools. The unusually broad multi-domain scope justifies more tools than a typical server, but several clusters could be consolidated.
The surface is thorough for a read-only data-access gateway: universal routing, grounded verification, entity resolution/profiles/comparisons, web/news/maps search, prediction-market analysis, memory CRUD, and a full subscription lifecycle. Minor gaps exist (no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs, no image/video Serper endpoints) but agents can work around them.