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?
The description adds scope ('caller's') and default filtering ('active') beyond the annotations, plus return field details. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, so this extra context is valuable.
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: the first states the action and return data, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words and appropriately front-loaded.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return format, and usage. The output schema is absent, but the description enumerates return fields sufficiently.
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. The description does not add additional meaning beyond implying the default of active-only subscriptions.
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 the caller's active subscriptions.' and specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like subscribe/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?
It provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusions.
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 clearly distinct purposes, and the heavy overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research is mitigated by detailed usage guidance. A few pairs like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence or discover_tools vs suggest_questions could confuse an agent, but the descriptions generally draw clear boundaries.
Names are all lowercase snake_case and several families are consistent (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*), but the overall set mixes styles: verb_noun such as list_quotes and resolve_entity, adjectival noun phrases such as random_quote and today_quote, and bare nouns like entity_profile and recent_changes. The patterns are readable but not predictable.
34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and the server name zenquotes suggests a much smaller quote-focused surface. The count is defensible for a broad data gateway, but as a unified server it feels overstuffed with many unrelated feature areas.
The combined surface is quite complete for its apparent scope: quote retrieval, query/research, grounding, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, subscriptions, memory, and prediction-market analysis are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct quote search and no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI.