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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description goes further by disclosing the default behavior (only active subscriptions) and the effect of include_inactive. It also lists the returned fields, which is critical since no output schema is provided. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 action and scope. The first sentence states the purpose and return values, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema or annotations.
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 and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: scope (caller's subscriptions), return shape, and practical use cases. The inclusion of parameter behavior (default active only) is also covered in conjunction with the schema.
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%, so the include_inactive parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only references 'active' in passing. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.
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 begins with a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'the caller's active subscriptions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe. It also enumerates the exact return fields, making the tool's output unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. This provides clear context for use and implies it is a prerequisite for subscribe/unsubscribe actions, which are listed among sibling tools.
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 overlap in purpose, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) and deep_research, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the Arcgis-specific tools are buried under numerous general Pipeworx tools.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but there are minor inconsistencies like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and the simpler Arcgis tool names.
With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially since the majority are Pipeworx meta-tools unrelated to the Arcgis Lubbock purpose. A well-scoped ArcGIS server would have far fewer tools.
For an ArcGIS server, only three tools directly serve that purpose (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), lacking editing, analysis, or visualization capabilities. The remaining tools address a completely different domain.