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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the scope is limited to the caller's subscriptions and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, etc.), which is useful but not extremely rich. No side effects are described, but none are needed for a read-only list.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and packs the return fields and usage guidance into the second sentence without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.
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 the tool's simplicity, rich annotations, and complete schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and use context. It would benefit from mentioning the include_inactive parameter, but the schema covers that, so it is a minor gap. Overall it is complete for the intended use.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, including a description for include_inactive. The tool description does not itself mention this parameter, but the schema fully covers it, so the description adds no additional semantic value 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clarifies the scope as 'the caller's active subscriptions' with a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on read-only listing, and lists the exact fields returned.
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?
It explicitly tells the user when to use it: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' (which implies before using subscribe) and 'to find an id to cancel' (which leads to unsubscribe). This gives clear context of appropriate use cases.
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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/discovery entry points. Polymarket tools also blur together (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk). While many tools have distinct purposes, these overlapping clusters create real misselection risk.
All names are snake_case but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, search_datasets, validate_claim), some are noun_verb (query_layer, layer_info is noun_noun), and some are single vague words (forget, recall, remember). No consistent verb_prefix or resource_suffix convention, and the mix of meta-tools vs data tools makes the naming feel arbitrary.
34 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Arcgis Lancaster' — only 3 tools relate to GIS. The bulk is an unrelated general-purpose data/prediction-market toolkit, making the count excessive for the apparent scope. Even as a broad data toolset, 34 tools is on the heavy side and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.
The tool surface is a grab bag with no coherent domain, so completeness is hard to assess and clearly lopsided. GIS functionality has search/query/info but no lifecycle management, while the data side has many query/analysis tools but no create/update/delete operations except for subscriptions and memory. Obvious gaps exist for a 'Lancaster' server (e.g., no layer creation, editing, or spatial analysis tools), and the unrelated tools make the set feel incomplete for any single stated purpose.