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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that only active subscriptions are returned by default, providing marginal behavioral context beyond annotations.
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: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded, efficient, and without any wasted words.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. No gaps remain.
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% with one well-documented parameter. The description reinforces the default exclusion of inactive subscriptions, adding slight context but no new semantic meaning.
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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It lists return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?
The description provides explicit context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It does not exclude alternatives but gives clear when-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.
While individual tool descriptions are detailed and specific, the set includes overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several prediction market tools with similar purposes (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). The broad range of unrelated domains means many tools are distinct, but some pairs are ambiguous.
Tool names use snake_case but follow no consistent pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile), and some have inconsistent structure (discover_tools, recent_alerts). The mix of conventions reduces predictability.
33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Tucson', as only 3 tools relate to ArcGIS (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer). The rest span completely unrelated domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, npm scanning, etc.), creating a severe mismatch between server name and tool functionality.
Considering the actual tool surface (a diverse data retrieval and prediction market analysis set), it is reasonably complete for common lookups (SEC, FDA, economics, news, bets). However, it lacks web search and the ArcGIS tools are minimal. The absence of a cohesive domain makes completeness hard to judge, but for the implied data-retrieval purpose, it's passable.