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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the caller's active subscriptions specifically, and lists the exact fields returned, providing useful context about scope and output 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, followed by relevant use cases. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema/annotation details.
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 covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The schema documents the parameter, the annotations handle safety semantics, and the return-field listing compensates for the lack of an output schema.
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 already documents include_inactive with a description and default, giving 100% coverage. The description doesn't mention the parameter, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.
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' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the returned fields, making its function unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like subscribe/unsubscribe, but the use case reference to 'before adding more' and 'to find an id to cancel' implicitly distinguishes it from them.
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 says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' which provides concrete when-to-use scenarios and implies the relevant alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe). However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct naming of alternatives.
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 significantly overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx family, deep_research, and validate_claim, plus a dense cluster of polymarket_* tools and two AI-visibility checkers. The ship-related tools are distinct, but an agent would struggle to choose among the many broadly similar query/research tools.
Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they follow no consistent convention: generic one-word verbs like remember and forget sit alongside branded names like ask_pipeworx, noun-style names like entity_profile, and prefix families like polymarket_*. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
34 tools is well above the well-scoped range, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server name 'Vessel Tracking'. The live-ship tools are a tiny minority buried inside a broad general-purpose data, research, and prediction-market platform, making the overall set feel bloated and misaligned with its stated identity.
As a vessel-tracking server, the surface is severely incomplete: only ais_coverage_check, live_ship_position, and live_ships_in_area relate to shipping, with no vessel lookup by name/IMO, no historical positions, no voyage data, and no port-call information. The actual tool set is rich as a general data platform, but that is not what the server name promises.