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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return fields and the default scope ('active' subscriptions), which is not evident from annotations alone.
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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, then lists return fields, and ends with usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details, making it highly efficient.
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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately covers scope, return content, and typical use cases. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without further clarification.
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 only parameter, include_inactive, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default value. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 identifies the resource as 'the caller's active subscriptions', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe. It also enumerates the return fields, making the tool's function 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 suggests when to use the tool: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It does not mention alternative tools explicitly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
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 tools span vastly different domains (AI visibility, data querying, prediction markets, GIS) with clear descriptions individually, but the set lacks a coherent focus. An agent looking for ArcGIS functionality would be distracted by many unrelated tools, causing confusion in tool selection.
Most tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are verbs (remember, forget), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info), and some include underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt vs. bet_research). The naming feels arbitrary.
With 33 tools, the count is high, but the vast majority are from Pipeworx and unrelated to the server's stated purpose (Arcgis Roanoke). Only 3-4 tools actually relate to GIS. The tool count is extremely inappropriate for the server's focus.
For the implied domain of ArcGIS Roanoke, the tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking CRUD for map layers, spatial queries, or data management. Conversely, the Pipeworx subset is also incomplete on its own (e.g., missing many data sources). The overall surface fails to serve any single domain well.