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 indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar for additional transparency is lower. The description adds the return field list and clarifies the scope ('caller's active subscriptions'). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured data.
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 sentences: purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core function.
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 simple tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete: it lists return fields, specifies the default scope, and explains when to use it. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 has full coverage (100%) for the single 'include_inactive' parameter, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('subscriptions'). It also lists the return fields, making its function unambiguous. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools '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 gives explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a read-only list tool. This earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.
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 have notably unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research heavily overlap in surfacing betting opportunities. Entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also share overlapping research scope, making misselection likely.
Most names use snake_case and a roughly readable verb_noun style (resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_categories), but conventions vary: some are bare nouns (entity_profile), some are plain verbs (remember, forget), and ask_pipeworx/pipeworx_* break the pattern. It is readable overall, but not a consistent scheme.
34 tools is far more than the 'trivia' name implies, and most of them (Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions) are unrelated to trivia. The set reads as an entire platform bundled together rather than a purpose-scoped server.
For the stated trivia purpose, the surface is missing core lifecycle features like quiz sessions, answer validation, or scoring; the few trivia tools are just category/reference lookups. As a general data/research server it is broad, but there are significant gaps and no coherent domain model tying the tools together.