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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields and clarifying that only active subscriptions are listed by default (unless include_inactive is set). This contextual detail goes beyond the structured annotations, though it could have noted default filtering behavior more explicitly.
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 core action and result. The first sentence states what it does and what it returns; the second explains practical usage. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or 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?
With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is complete. It lists the return fields, which compensates for the missing output schema, and gives clear usage context. Nothing critical is missing for a tool of this simplicity.
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 100% coverage: the only parameter, include_inactive, is fully described in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra semantic detail about the parameter. The baseline score for high schema coverage is 3, and the description neither improves nor worsens the parameter understanding.
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 begins with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also enumerates the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), making the tool's function unmistakable. The scope ('caller's') and the explicit mention of active subscriptions distinguish it from sibling tools 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 concrete use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool relative to adding or canceling subscriptions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use subscribe to add more'), so it falls short of a 5, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose: three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are nearly identical routers, five polymarket_* tools cover similar prediction-market ground, and the server combines a tiny Warframe component with a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket toolkit, making selection ambiguous. The server name 'Warframe' does not match the majority of tools, further muddying intent.
There is a loose snake_case convention, and several tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_fissures, list_subscriptions, search_items, validate_claim). However, single-word imperative tools (remember, recall, forget), noun-phrase names (entity_profile, world_state, deep_research), and the polymarket_* family using inconsistent second words break the pattern. It is readable but not cleanly predictable.
35 tools is far too many for a Warframe-focused server, and only 4 tools (get_fissures, get_invasions, search_items, world_state) actually relate to Warframe. The remaining 31 tools are a sprawling generic data/research/prediction-market collection that belongs to a different product, making the set bloated and unfocused for its apparent purpose.
Relative to the Warframe domain, the coverage is thin: only fissures, invasions, item search, and a combined world_state are offered, with obvious gaps like alerts, news, Nightwave, and event tracking. The broader Pipeworx/Polymarket toolset is internally comprehensive, but those tools do not serve the server's stated name and leave the Warframe scope incomplete.