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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by listing the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying that only active subscriptions are returned by default. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting 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 exactly two sentences: the first states purpose and returned fields, the second gives usage context. It's front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing all returned fields. It also covers the key use cases, user scoping, and the distinction between active and inactive subscriptions. This is complete for a list tool with a single optional parameter and rich annotations.
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 description for include_inactive is fully self-explanatory (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat it. The description does reinforce that active subscriptions are the default, which aligns with the parameter's default false. This is adequate but not additive beyond the schema.
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's function: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It specifies the resource (subscriptions), the scope (caller's), and the action (list). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning use cases to review before adding more (subscribe) or to find an id to cancel (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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly points to sibling tools (subscribe/unsubscribe) for the actual mutating actions, making the alternative clear.
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.
Many tools have overlapping or redundant purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, and several polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) all surface trading opportunities with similar outputs. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but buried among dozens of unrelated data/meta tools, making selection confusing.
All names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun pattern is inconsistent. Some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are bare verbs (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming style is readable but not predictably patterned.
34 tools is already high, but the severe issue is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS Delaware County purpose. The other 31 are Pipeworx data, memory, subscription, and prediction-market tools, which is a blatant scope mismatch. The tool count is not appropriate for the advertised server domain.
For an ArcGIS Delaware County GIS server, the surface is extremely thin: only search, query, and layer metadata exist. There are no tools for editing features, uploading data, managing layers, or exporting maps. Conversely, the Pipeworx tools form a broad but fragmented domain with many monitoring and meta-tools but no clear end-to-end workflow. The set is severely incomplete for its apparent dual purpose.