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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns specific fields, filters to the caller's subscriptions, and defaults to active only. This goes beyond the 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 sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter), annotations are rich, and the description lists all return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) with no output schema provided. It fully equips an agent to 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter (include_inactive). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it only repeats the 'active' filtering, which is already implied by the parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns, distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by framing it as a review/cancel action.
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 usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly, so it falls short of the full 5.
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 purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and also multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Descriptions try to differentiate but the boundaries are unclear, causing confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some use descriptive phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The variety makes it hard to predict tool names.
33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Arcgis Fairfield', as most tools are unrelated to GIS or Fairfield (e.g., npm dependency checks, prediction markets, AI visibility). The tool count severely mismatches the server's purported scope.
The server's stated purpose is ArcGIS Fairfield, but only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) relate to that domain. Critical GIS operations like updating features or managing services are missing, while the vast majority of tools are for other domains.