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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral insight by specifying that it lists only the caller's subscriptions and by enumerating the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which is useful context 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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently adds return-value details and usage guidance.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the purpose, the returned fields, and the intended use case. The output schema is absent, but the description explicitly lists the output fields, making the tool sufficiently complete without needing to over-explain.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the include_inactive parameter already documented as 'Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false).' The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the caller's active subscriptions,' which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe. It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's scope explicit.
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 usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 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.
Several groups of tools are hard to tell apart in practice: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all route natural-language questions to similar data sources, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research heavily overlaps. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent navigating this surface will frequently struggle to choose the correct entry point.
The naming is readable and mostly snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some tools are verb+noun commands (resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), and others use product prefixes inconsistently (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs polymarket_edges). The polymarket_* cluster is consistent, but no clear pattern holds across the whole server.
34 tools is past the 25-tool threshold and is especially excessive for a server named 'translate', where only three tools relate to translation. Most of the surface belongs to a broad Pipeworx data/analytics/prediction-market platform that would be better split into separate focused servers.
The Pipeworx-related workflows are fairly well-covered: lookup, grounded research, company profiling, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory all have usable tool clusters. However, the translation domain implied by the server name is thin and references a deepl_translate tool that is not actually exposed, so there is no single domain that feels fully complete.