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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds the specific return fields. No contradiction, but adds minimal 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, no redundant words, highly efficient. All information is front-loaded.
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 good annotations, single optional param, and no output schema needed. Description is complete enough for safe usage. Could mention pagination but not required.
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 has 100% coverage with description for 'include_inactive'. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.
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?
Description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and 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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. No when-not, but sufficient for a simple read tool.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) overlap significantly in functionality, as do the Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.), which could cause an agent to misselect without careful reading of descriptions.
Naming follows multiple styles: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), domain first (polymarket_arbitrage, bart_departures), and single words (remember, forget). There is no consistent pattern, making the set feel disjointed.
35 tools is on the heavy side for a single server. While each tool has a defined role, the count suggests potential for consolidation (e.g., merging ask_pipeworx variants or Polymarket tools). The server's broad scope partially justifies the count.
The tool surface covers a wide range of functionalities: structured querying, entity lookup, comparison, fact-checking, subscription management, memory, and domain-specific tools for BART and Polymarket. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for some data sources), but overall it feels comprehensive.