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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that results are scoped to the caller, lists the response fields, and clarifies the default of active-only with an option to include inactive. This adds context beyond annotations, though pagination or limits are not mentioned.
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 return fields, followed by practical use cases. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.
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 strong annotations, the description is complete: it specifies the output fields, scope, default behavior, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the return format is enumerated in the description.
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 single parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' aligns with it but does not add substantial additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by being the read/list counterpart.
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?
It explicitly says when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context and connects to the subscribe/unsubscribe workflow as 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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, notably the ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded all route identically) and random_card vs draw_cards for straightforward draws. The polymarket and research tools also share fuzzy boundaries that an agent could easily misroute.
All names use snake_case and readable English, but the set mixes verb-led (ask_pipeworx, recall), noun-led (random_card, recent_alerts), and prefix-family names (polymarket_*, entity_*) with no single structural pattern. Readable but not cohesive.
35 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range and far more than a tarot-focused server would justify. The excess is externally provided Pipeworx functionality that dominates the tarot tools it sits over.
For the tarot domain, the set covers the full usage loop: getting, drawing, and searching cards are all present. The surrounding data/research/memory tools also cover their own domains exhaustively, with no obvious dead ends.