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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and the active-only default behavior. No contradictions with 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?
The description is two concise sentences. The first states the primary function, the second lists return fields and usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.
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 no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is listed, what fields are returned, and how to use it. The sibling context (subscribe/unsubscribe) further clarifies its role.
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 one parameter with a complete description: 'Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false).' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also specifies the return fields, which adds precision. This is distinct from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe, which perform different actions.
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 clear usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like subscribe/unsubscribe. This is strong guidance for a simple list operation.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and several Polymarket analysis tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) blur together. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large set of data-query and prediction-market tools with unclear boundaries.
All tool names use snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are command-style (query_layer, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (layer_info, entity_profile), and others are bare verbs (remember, forget). The naming is readable but not consistently patterned.
34 tools is too many for a server named 'Arcgis Allegheny', especially since only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to ArcGIS at all. The bulk of the tools address unrelated domains like Pipeworx data lookups and Polymarket betting, making the count excessive for the apparent purpose.
For a server focused on ArcGIS Allegheny County data, the surface is severely incomplete: only three read-only tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) cover the domain, and they lack operations like adding, updating, or deleting features. The remaining 31 tools are unrelated to GIS, so the server fails to provide a coherent or complete toolset for its stated purpose.