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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields (id, type, params, etc.) and the default scope ('active subscriptions'). It does not contradict any annotation.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second lists return fields and usage intent. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. Annotations provide safety profile, and no output schema exists but the return fields are explicitly listed. This is complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (include_inactive), so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'active subscriptions,' but the schema already covers the meaning and default behavior. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on the listing/reviewing function. The mention of return fields further clarifies the scope.
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: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to subscribe/unsubscribe, with clear context for both pre-add review and pre-cancel lookup.
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_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently identical to ask_pipeworx. discover_tools and suggest_questions both exist to help agents find tools, and the five Polymarket tools have subtle, hard-to-distinguish boundaries. Agents will frequently select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Tool names are mostly lowercase snake_case with verb-noun structure (query_layer, search_datasets, resolve_entity), which is consistent and readable. However, some names break the pattern (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback) and the prefixes are not uniform. Still, the convention is predictable enough to navigate.
34 tools is a heavy count, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated 'Arcgis Lacounty' purpose. Only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) serve the named GIS domain, while the rest form a sprawling collection of data-lookup, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is a severe scope mismatch.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an ArcGIS LA County server: no layer listing beyond keyword search, no metadata endpoints, no editing, no spatial operations. The broader tool set lacks a coherent domain, making coverage impossible to assess beyond noting the glaring absence of core GIS functionality.