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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds helpful behavioral context: it specifies the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), notes that it is scoped to 'the caller', and implies that only active subscriptions are returned by default. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence lists return fields and provides usage guidance. There is no wasted wording, and the information is front-loaded with the purpose first. Every part 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?
This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and good annotations. The description covers the purpose, usage scenarios, and return fields. Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists what is returned. Given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter (include_inactive) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional semantics about this parameter, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning. The description does clarify the overall return shape, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' This specifies both the verb (List) and the resource (the caller's active subscriptions), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on the listing action. The mention of returning specific fields further clarifies what the tool does.
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 (before adding subscriptions or to find an ID for cancellation). It does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'subscribe' or 'unsubscribe', but the context clearly implies them, so it lacks only the direct 'when not to use' guidance.
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 distinct purposes, but there is overlap among data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and numerous Polymarket bet tools, which could cause confusion. Tool descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the diversity of domains requires careful reading.
Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some are snake_case verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets), others are noun_verb (bet_research) or compound names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no uniform convention, making it harder for agents to predict tool names.
With 33 tools, the server feels overloaded for its apparent ArcGIS focus. Most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS (Polymarket, Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions), suggesting a lack of scope. The count is high without a clear unifying purpose.
The tool surface is incomplete for any single domain. ArcGIS coverage is minimal (only query and schema), Pipeworx data tools are abundant but without a clear workflow, and Polymarket betting lacks order placement. The server tries to cover too many areas resulting in shallow coverage.