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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return field list and scoping to the caller's active subscriptions, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or rate limits.
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, no fluff, information-dense. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place by adding either purpose or usage context.
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 one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and use case sufficiently. There is no significant missing context.
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 sole parameter include_inactive is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add more. It doesn't repeat or add param details, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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' with a clear resource 'the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.), making it distinct from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe.
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 states when to use it: to review current monitoring before adding more subscriptions or to find an id to cancel, referencing the actions of subscribing and unsubscribing. While it doesn't name alternative tools directly, the context is clear enough.
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.
The tool set contains multiple overlapping tools for data querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) and prediction market analysis (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread), making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use. The GIS-specific tools are few and could be confused with general data tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun or noun_verb (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, search_datasets), while others are longer phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Mixed conventions and lack of uniformity reduce predictability.
With 34 tools, the count is high for a server ostensibly focused on ArcGIS Pflugerville. Many tools are unrelated to GIS (e.g., prediction market tools, general Pipeworx utilities), making the tool surface feel bloated and poorly scoped.
For an ArcGIS server, the coverage is minimal: only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) directly support GIS operations. Missing typical GIS capabilities like geocoding, spatial analysis, or editing. The inclusion of many non-GIS tools does not compensate for the lack of depth in the core domain.