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 and idempotentHint. The description adds value by listing the returned fields and mentioning the include_inactive parameter, which annotations do not cover.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and return fields, 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?
The description covers purpose, return fields, usage context, and the optional parameter. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool these are minor omissions.
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 the description does not need to add much. It mentions the parameter implicitly but does not expand beyond the schema definition.
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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context and suggests alternatives.
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 five Slack tools are distinct, but the rest of the set is a sprawling bundle of Pipeworx, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools with several overlapping pairs: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, while discover_tools and suggest_questions both act as discovery entry points and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. An agent would frequently have to read long caveats to choose the right tool.
Most names are descriptive snake_case and the Slack tools share a clean slack_ prefix, but the broader set mixes verb-led names (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim) with noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, ai_visibility_check) and a few bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). It is readable but does not follow a single predictable pattern.
36 tools is above the 25+ threshold and far more than a Slack connector needs: only five tools actually interact with Slack, while the other 31 are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription features. The set reads as a kitchen-sink bundle rather than a focused integration.
For a Slack_connect server, the surface is only partially complete: it can list channels/users, join, read history, and send messages, but common Slack operations like threads, reactions, message update/delete, channel creation/archiving, and direct messages are missing. The unrelated data tools do not fill these gaps, so the actual Slack domain would still cause agent failures.