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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: it returns active subscriptions by default, with an optional include_inactive parameter, and lists the specific fields returned. This adds value 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?
Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. This is an ideal structure.
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, the description is complete. It explains what it returns and when to use it. No output schema is needed because the return format is clearly described.
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% with one parameter fully described. The description doesn't add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource. It lists return fields and distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe'.
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 usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it.
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.
Multiple tools share overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, and the five polymarket_* tools cover heavily overlapping territory. An agent must read lengthy descriptions to distinguish between them, and pairs like validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded or discover_tools vs suggest_questions have fuzzy boundaries.
Naming is wildly inconsistent: verb_noun (compare_entities, discover_tools), bare verbs (forget, remember, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_feedback), prefixed families (tradier_*, polymarket_*) and suffixed variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded). There is no single predictable convention across the set.
34 tools is far beyond the 15-25 heavy range, and the count is inflated by near-duplicates like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta and five polymarket edge tools. The server mixes several unrelated domains (Tradier quotes/options, Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, web utilities), making the scope feel unbounded.
For a server named Tradier, having only quote and option-chain endpoints is a significant gap—no historical data, account, positions, or order execution. The Pipeworx/Polymarket side is more complete, but the inclusion of unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency means no single domain is fully served.