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, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by listing specific return fields (id, type, params, etc.), which are 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no wasted words.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return fields. No mention of pagination or limitations, but complexity is low.
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% with one boolean parameter documented. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 action (list subscriptions) and specifies the caller's subscriptions, distinguishing from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe. It also lists return fields, adding precision.
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?
Explicitly says when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' providing clear context and excluding other uses.
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 have distinct purposes, but the cluster of Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar, causing potential confusion. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) also add some overlap.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, which is consistent. However, the similar Pipeworx tools have confusingly similar names (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs ask_pipeworx_beta), and the naming does not clearly distinguish their differences.
With 34 tools, the set is too large for a server ostensibly focused on Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. The majority of tools are unrelated domain-agnostic data tools, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The Yu-Gi-Oh! card tools are limited to lookup and search, missing obvious operations like creating or updating cards. The unrelated data tools, while many, do not form a coherent set for a single purpose, leaving gaps in both directions.