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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the 'caller's active subscriptions' scope clarification but no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't discuss pagination, ordering, or edge cases, which would add depth.
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 sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by return fields and a use-case hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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 covers the key elements: what it returns, scope, and when to use it. It doesn't mention error conditions or response format beyond fields, but this is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema fully documents the single optional include_inactive parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so it relies on schema coverage, which is sufficient at 100%.
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, a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by framing this as a review step before adding or canceling.
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?
Provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'to find an id to cancel.' While it doesn't name subscribe/unsubscribe as alternatives, the context strongly implies when to use this tool versus when to use siblings, giving clear practical 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 are easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, deep_research overlaps heavily with ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the six polymarket_* tools have closely related purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, making selection error-prone.
Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (query_layer, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim). A few noun-style names like entity_profile, layer_info, and pipeworx_trending deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.
34 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and the server is named 'Arcgis Charlotte' while only three tools actually relate to ArcGIS. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory toolkit, which creates a severe scope mismatch.
For the Pipeworx data side the surface is quite thorough, but for the declared ArcGIS Charlotte purpose it is thin: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer provide read-only access with no update/delete, analysis, or dataset management. The tool set therefore has a significant gap relative to its stated domain.