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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and the notion of 'active' subscriptions, which is beyond the annotation metadata.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and return fields, followed by a concise usage tip. Every word contributes value and there is no 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 and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the scope (caller's subscriptions), the return fields, and provides context for when to use it relative to adding or cancelling subscriptions. No significant information 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter include_inactive is fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add additional semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 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 the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the returned fields, and the usage note about finding an id to cancel implicitly distinguishes it from subscribe/unsubscribe tools.
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 use cases: review existing subscriptions before adding more, or find an id to cancel. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection.
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 tools serve overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and suggest_questions all handle question-answering, with beta currently identical to the main router. The Polymarket family has six distinct but related tools, and descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent could still misselect when the boundaries are subtle.
All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some start with verbs (resolve_entity, validate_claim), while many are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention, and the repeated ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* prefixes add some structure.
At 33 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to navigate. While the server covers a broad data-research and prediction-market domain, the count exceeds what is typically manageable, and several tools (ask_pipeworx_beta, discover_tools) could be collapsed or merged without losing core capability.
The tool set covers the domain well: querying, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, memory, and onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to fetch a full SEC filing body directly, relying on ask_pipeworx routing), but there are no obvious dead ends for the stated purposes.