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 the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and scoping the result to 'the caller's' subscriptions, which is not captured in the annotations. No contradictions found.
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 purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states what it does, the second lists return fields and gives use cases. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. The annotations provide the safety profile, so the description doesn't need extra behavioral detail. It enables an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the 'include_inactive' parameter, but the schema already fully documents it. The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' implicitly aligns with the default false, but adds no new parameter-specific knowledge.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by specifying it returns existing subscriptions, and it enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose 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 provides clear 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 subscribing, when needing to cancel) without explicitly naming alternatives. It lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement, but the use cases are sufficiently clear.
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 ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research) has significant boundary blurring—ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'—and the six prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping edge-detection purposes. Only the archive, memory, and subscription families are cleanly delineated.
There are consistent family prefixes (ask_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and clean pluralized lists (list_files, list_subscriptions), but the full set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, search), nouns (entity_profile), and varying patterns (bet_research vs compare_entities, search vs search_within vs recent_changes). Readable in clusters, but no single naming convention binds the set.
35 tools is heavy, and the count is fattened by five distinct product areas—data routing, prediction markets, archive.org access, memory, and subscriptions—that have little to do with each other or with the server name 'archive'. It sits in the 25+ heavy zone even before honoring the mismatch between its name and the sprawl of its purpose.
Individual subdomains are well-covered: the memory trio (remember/recall/forget), subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and archive lineup (search/get_metadata/list_files/wayback_check) are each complete, and extra machinery like pipeworx_feedback and recent_changes shows domain care. But the unifying domain is incoherent—a server named 'archive' that's also a universal data router and prediction-market toolkit—and the scope ends up both bloated and still full of gaps for any one of the intended users (e.g. no archive-item upload, no prediction-market portfolio management).