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 readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds that only active subscriptions are returned by default and optionally inactive, providing context beyond the 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 succinct sentences: first defines purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No redundant words or fluff.
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?
Given no output schema, the description details return fields. Annotations cover safety. Sibling context is addressed. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but for a simple list tool this is minor.
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 covers the single optional parameter fully (100% coverage). Description mentions 'active' which aligns with the default, but adds no new details about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on reading rather than modifying.
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 advises when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for usage relative to subscribe/unsubscribe 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.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying data sources. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap as single vs. comparative variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between the query/research tools remain genuinely ambiguous for an agent.
No consistent global naming convention. There are prefix families (amp_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*) but within them the structure varies (amp_get_events vs amp_user_search; ask_pipeworx vs polymarket_fill_risk), and many tools are bare verbs or noun phrases (remember, recall, forget, bet_research, search_within, recent_alerts). The mix of verb-first and noun-first names with irregular prefixes makes predicting tool names unreliable.
36 tools is too many for the server's nominal purpose: only 5 of them (amp_*) relate to Amplitude analytics, while the other 31 form a sprawling all-in-one data/research/prediction-market platform. Even accepting that broader scope, many tools could be consolidated (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, several polymarket tools are specialized but still numerous), making the count feel padded rather than focused.
The Pipeworx side is thorough: lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory cover most of that domain well. However, the Amplitude analytics side is thin — it only queries events, active users, retention, and user activity, with no way to manage projects, cohorts, event definitions, or user properties. There is also no general web search tool and no direct database/SQL exploration, leaving notable gaps for the advertised all-in-one positioning.