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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. Description adds value by naming return fields and noting default behavior (active only, include_inactive toggle). No contradictions.
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, no wasted words. First sentence defines action and output, second gives usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded.
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?
With rich annotations and a simple parameter, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Could mention ordering or pagination, but not necessary for this tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.
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?
Description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe. It also lists return fields.
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 advises when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Directly references sibling actions (subscribe, cancel), giving 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.
Several tool families have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both verify claims against sources, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/bet_research all surface prediction-market opportunities. Agents would need to read very long descriptions to distinguish overlapping intents, and would likely misroute requests.
All names use snake_case, which is a consistent base, and subgroups (shodan_host*, ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*) follow internal patterns. However, conventions mix verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity) with noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts), and parallel functionality is named with inverted ordering (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).
34 tools is above the comfortable range for a single server and the breadth feels bloated, especially with five highly niche Polymarket tools. More critically, the server is named 'Shodan' but only 3 of 34 tools are Shodan-related, so the count is badly mismatched with the stated identity.
For a server claiming to be Shodan, the surface is severely incomplete — only host lookup, search, and count are present, with no DNS, alerting, or other standard Shodan operations. For the actual Pipeworx/Polymarket domain implied by most tools, coverage is fuller but still has gaps such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI, and the memory/subscription features feel bolted on rather than integral.