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 idempotentHint=true. Description adds context on default behavior (active only) and the effect of the include_inactive parameter, going 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 concise sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No fluff.
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?
Adequately covers purpose, return fields, and usage. Missing potential details like pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool with good annotations, this is sufficient.
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 description repeats the schema's parameter description. Adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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?
Clearly states verb (list) and resource (subscriptions). Differentiates from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by specifying it returns active subscriptions with detailed fields.
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?
Explicitly advises when to use: 'before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Implies alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe).
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.
Tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' and 'validate_claim' both handle factual queries; 'bet_research' and 'polymarket_edges' both analyze betting markets. However, most tools target distinct domains (Todoist, data lookup, betting), so some separation exists.
Naming uses snake_case and often follows verb_noun, but prefixes are inconsistent: some tools have 'todoist_', 'pipeworx_', 'polymarket_', while others like 'compare_entities' and 'discover_tools' lack prefixes. This mix reduces predictability.
25 tools is high, and only 5 are Todoist-specific despite the server name. The inclusion of many unrelated tools (Pipeworx, betting, etc.) makes the set feel bloated and misaligned with the server's stated focus.
For Todoist, the set lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving gaps. For the broader data domains, coverage is extensive but unfocused. The server's purpose is unclear, leading to an incomplete surface for any single use case.