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 value beyond annotations by listing return fields. However, it does not disclose any potential pagination limits, ordering, or the time range of subscriptions. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lowered.
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-loading the core action and return fields. No extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
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 sufficiently lists the return fields, covers the parameter via schema, and provides usage context. No gaps.
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% description coverage with the 'include_inactive' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add extra semantics for the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 explicitly states the verb 'List', the resource 'subscriptions', and the scope 'caller's active'. The sibling tools 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' provide clear differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. This is clear and actionable, though it does not mention when not to use it.
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.
Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also has fuzzy boundaries — both bet_research and polymarket_edges claim 'should I bet on X', and discover_tools versus suggest_questions both serve discovery. Despite very detailed descriptions, an agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct tool.
The naming is mostly snake_case and readable, with coherent micro-families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx variants, remember/recall/forget). However, patterns are mixed: verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt) sits alongside noun-led names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and entity-related tools use three different conventions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, entity_profile). It's consistent within families but not across the full set.
32 tools is well past the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set, and the scope is a scattered grab bag: a joke RNG, an AI-visibility probe, a 5,708-tool data router, prediction-market arb analytics, key-value memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and a feedback channel. Some of these are arguably platform additions rather than core tools, but as presented the count feels bloated and unfocused.
The major workflow areas are well covered — data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, profiles, and change feeds; memory and subscriptions each have full lifecycle coverage. However, the server repeatedly references pipeworx:// citation URIs as fetchable yet provides no record-fetching tool, and the diffuse purpose makes it hard to assess what 'complete' even means. Notable gaps exist around citation resolution and execution of the arbitrage signals the Polymarket tools generate.