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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds a useful list of return fields and reinforces that only active subscriptions are listed by default, but it does not disclose potential behavioral details like pagination or rate limits. With annotations present, this meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.
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-loaded with the core verb and resource. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return fields and usage scenarios. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or wasted words.
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 fully covers the return fields (id, type, params, timestamps, fire_count) and the intended use cases (review monitoring, find id to cancel). This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?
The single optional parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema with its default value, giving 100% schema coverage. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient. The mention of 'active subscriptions' aligns with the parameter's purpose.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the caller's active subscriptions,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe. It also specifies the scope (caller's own subscriptions) and the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 states when to use the tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear context, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks the full 'when-not' guidance.
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 and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently literally identical, and the polymarket_* family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) all orbit the same prediction-market opportunity space. The descriptions are detailed and do help, but the sheer number of near-synonymous entry points makes misselection likely.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case, verb-first pattern: ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, query_layer, resolve_entity, search_datasets, validate_claim. Minor deviations exist — the polymarket_* tools are noun-phrase style and a few names like entity_profile, layer_info, and ai_visibility_check are noun-led — but the overall style is uniform enough to be predictable.
34 tools is already in the overstuffed range, but the bigger problem is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS/Chapel Hill identity. The other 31 tools appear to be an unrelated Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription bundle merged into this server, making the count grossly disproportionate to the apparent purpose.
The three GIS tools form a usable read-only search → schema → query workflow, so the ArcGIS domain is not completely absent. However, as a whole the server has no coherent domain to be complete for, and the ArcGIS side lacks broader capabilities like layer enumeration, spatial filters/statistics, or any write/edit operations. For a server named Arcgis Chapelhill, having 31 out-of-scope tools constitutes a major completeness failure.