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). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by listing return fields and usage context, but no additional behavioral traits beyond 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 concise sentences: first explains the function and outputs, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema but return fields listed in description), the description is complete and sufficient for the agent to use the tool 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 include_inactive has a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3.
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 tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates the return fields (id, type, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which are mutations.
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 advises using this tool to review subscriptions before adding more or to find an id to cancel, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from job searching to company research to bet analysis. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by one being hallucination-resistant. Memory and subscription tools are clearly separated.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_jobs, validate_claim, subscribe). However, some tools like pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile deviate with noun_noun or proper noun patterns, creating minor inconsistency.
29 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a wide breadth of domains (jobs, company data, betting, memory, monitoring) so each tool earns its place. Slightly over-scoped but reasonable.
The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For jobs, only search/list/get exist (no create/update/delete). For company data, update is missing. For betting, there is analysis but no placement. The set is broad but not deeply complete for any single domain.