List active webhook subscriptions for this API key
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "listPushSubscriptions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'List' implies a safe read, and 'active' discloses that inactive subscriptions are excluded from the result. It does not state whether results are paginated, what fields come back, or whether hidden/inactive subscriptions can be retrieved at all.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the read verb arrive immediately and the scope qualifier follows. Nothing in it is redundant with the tool name beyond the necessary restatement.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a conceptual level, but it omits return shape, ordering, and pagination behavior. An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict what the payload will look like.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'for this API key' correctly signals that scoping comes from credentials rather than an argument.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (webhook/push subscriptions) with an added scope qualifier ('active') and a caller-scoping constraint ('for this API key'). It is implicitly distinguishable from the create/delete/toggle siblings, but it never names them to make the routing explicit.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no pointer to alternatives such as togglePushSubscription for changing state or deletePushSubscription for removal. Only the word 'active' hints at a filter condition, and even that is left for the agent to infer.
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.