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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns specific fields (id, type, params, etc.) and filters to active subscriptions by default, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 key action, then lists return fields and usage context. No wasted words or repetition.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage scenarios. It is complete and self-contained for the caller's needs.
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% and the only parameter include_inactive has a clear schema description. The tool description mentions 'active subscriptions' but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on listing rather than creating or removing.
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 use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, though the context implies before subscribe/unsubscribe.
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 and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and entity_profile all perform data lookups with only subtle differences. discover_tools and suggest_questions also serve similar onboarding/exploration roles.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun or noun_phrase pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, query_layer, entity_profile, remember). There is a slight mix between verb-first and noun-first names but no chaotic conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb tense.
At 34 tools, the count is well above the typical 15-25 range for a coherent server. More critically, the server is named 'Arcgis Lakecountyil' but only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to ArcGIS; the remaining 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel excessive and unfocused.
For the ArcGIS domain implied by the server name, the surface is barely complete: it offers search, schema inspection, and querying, but no create, update, delete, or management capabilities. Conversely, the Pipeworx side is relatively rich, but that doesn't match the server's stated purpose, leaving the overall set incomplete for its apparent intended use.