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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying the scope ('caller's active subscriptions'), which goes beyond the annotations.
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 action, and every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides return fields and usage guidance. No wasted 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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, what fields are returned, and when to use it. The annotations and schema fill the remaining gaps, making it 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% and the single parameter (include_inactive) is fully described in the schema. The description does not mention this parameter, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe. It also explicitly connects to use cases (reviewing before adding more, finding an id to cancel), reinforcing its unique role.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'before adding more' (i.e., before subscribing) and 'to find an id to cancel.' It implies the alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) but does not name them explicitly as tools, which would have made this a 5.
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 occupy overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicate query entry points (beta is currently identical), while ladder/standings, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage also blur together. An agent would struggle to reliably pick the right tool without reading very long descriptions.
The vast majority of names are snake_case and many follow a readable verb_noun shape, such as resolve_entity, validate_claim, and list_subscriptions. However, the Squiggle/AFL tools are bare nouns (games, ladder, sources, standings, teams, tips), and the polymarket_* / pipeworx_* prefixes do not use one consistent verb style, so it is not a fully uniform convention.
37 tools is in the too-many band, and the sprawl is compounded by mixing unrelated domains under one server: AFL stats, a huge Pipeworx data-routing layer, prediction-market analytics, AI visibility checks, npm dependency review, and llms.txt generation. The set feels like several merged servers rather than one well-scoped MCP.
The query/research surface is broad and covers many subdomains, and the subscription lifecycle is reasonably complete with subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts. However, pipeworx:// citation URIs are prominently returned but no tool fetches a cited record directly, the AFL side lacks player-level data, and subscriptions cannot be updated.