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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the exact return fields (id, type, params, etc.), which is beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states action and output, second gives usage context. No waste.
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 and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains return fields and provides usage context, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so baseline score 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb (list) and resource (subscriptions), and distinguishes 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?
Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and complements siblings.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap in the 'how should I query data' space. Additionally, the tool set mixes two unrelated domains (Zenodo and Pipeworx) without any organizing principle, forcing agents to guess which family applies.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but the semantic patterns are inconsistent: bare nouns for Zenodo tools (search, record, communities), product-prefixed names (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), generic verbs (remember, forget, recall), and verb_noun compounds (list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). The server is named Zenodo, yet most tools carry a pipeworx or polymarket prefix, making the naming feel arbitrary relative to the server's identity.
36 tools is excessive for a server whose stated identity is Zenodo; only 5 of the 36 tools actually relate to Zenodo, with the remaining 31 belonging to a separate Pipeworx data platform. This suggests a bundled or mislabeled server rather than a deliberately scoped tool surface, and even the Zenodo subset alone would be thin.
For the Zenodo domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: it covers search and read/retrieval (search, record, record_files, communities, community_records) but entirely omits the deposit workflow that is central to Zenodo — no create, update, delete, versioning, or file upload/download tools. The unrelated Pipeworx side is over-built, but the actual Zenodo use case leaves agents with dead ends.