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 this as safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the return field list and the active-vs-inactive scope, which is useful beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the use case. No redundant information.
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?
Given the simplicity, complete schema, and clear annotations, the description provides all necessary context. It also lists return fields in the absence of an output schema.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter `include_inactive` with 100% coverage. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable since the schema is complete.
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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing existing subscriptions rather than creating or canceling them.
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 tells when to use it: to review current monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel. This provides clear guidance for both subscribe and unsubscribe contexts.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap among closely related Polymarket tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) and between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, which could cause misselection.
Tool names mix verb_noun, noun_verb, and descriptive phrases inconsistently (e.g., get_times vs listen_subscriptions vs bet_research), and while many use underscores, conventions vary, making patterns hard to predict.
With 32 tools, the server feels overloaded, covering distinct domains (sunrise, Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions) under one name, making it a 'Swiss army knife' rather than a focused toolset.
The server name suggests a narrow domain (sunrise/sunset) but only 2 of 32 tools address it, ignoring related weather data. While other domains are covered, operations lack depth (e.g., no subscription updates, no memory search).