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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that it returns specific fields and defaults to active subscriptions, providing behavioral context 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 succinct sentences: first states functionality and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with comprehensive annotations and one parameter, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and usage. Minor gap: does not explicitly state the return is an array, but it is implied.
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 only parameter (include_inactive) is fully described in the schema. Description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so score is baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifies returned fields, and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools subscribe and unsubscribe by referencing review and cancellation use cases.
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?
Description explicitly advises using the tool to review monitoring before adding subscriptions and to find IDs for cancellation. It does not explicitly exclude other uses, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
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.
Most tools have distinct, well-scoped purposes, but several question-answering/research tools sit close together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim can all be selected for factual questions. The descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and discovery helpers like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending also overlap somewhat.
Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern such as build_url, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. The polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes form a readable convention, though a few names like pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-phrases rather than verb-first actions.
34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold where even a broad platform starts to feel bloated. The set mixes data research, prediction-market tooling, URL utilities, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and npm scanning, which would be more coherently split across focused servers.
The core research workflows are thoroughly covered: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, discovery, alerts, and memory all exist. However, the URL utility and dependency-scanning side domains feel tacked on and incomplete, and there is no dedicated tool to fetch an arbitrary pipeworx:// citation record even though such URIs are returned throughout.