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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the return fields (id, type, params, etc.) and clarifying the default behavior (active subscriptions). No contradictions.
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 concise sentences: first states the action and return fields, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, excellent structure.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: return fields, default scope, and practical usage advice. It is complete for an AI agent to use 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 description is already provided. The description does not add significant extra semantics beyond what the schema says, but it does imply the default is active-only, which aligns with baseline expectations.
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 subscriptions (both active and optionally inactive). It uses the 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?
The description explicitly advises using this tool to review active subscriptions before adding more or to find an ID to cancel. While it doesn't describe when not to use it, the guidance is clear and contextually appropriate.
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 distinct responsibilities, but several clusters blur together: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_peworx_grounded are near-identical entry points, the five Polymarket tools overlap heavily, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap in purpose. An agent would need to read long descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
Names are almost entirely snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern. Minor inconsistency exists in prefixes and verb styles (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs polymarket_arbitrage vs bet_research), but the naming is generally predictable and readable.
34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for a cohesive set, and the count is not justified by the server's apparent Anilist scope: the majority of tools are unrelated Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and npm-scanning utilities. Many meta-tools could be consolidated.
For a server named Anilist, the anime surface is severely incomplete: only search_anime, get_anime, and trending_anime exist, with no seasonal, top-rated, studio, character, staff, or recommendation operations. The Pipeworx data side is fairly complete, but that does not serve the stated domain.