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, etc. Description adds return fields and scope (caller's subscriptions), but does not disclose new behavioral traits 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 conveying purpose, return values, and usage context with zero waste. Efficiently 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 rich annotations, schema with 100% coverage, and no output schema, the description fully explains return fields and usage scenarios. Complete for a list tool.
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 a clear description for the 'include_inactive' parameter. Description does not add extra semantics beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states it lists active subscriptions with specific return fields, and distinguishes from siblings (subscribe/unsubscribe) by mentioning its use for review before adding or canceling.
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 says to use for reviewing monitoring before adding more or to find an ID to cancel, providing clear context. Does not include when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient.
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 distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim, which could cause confusion. However, the descriptions help clarify when to use each.
Tool names use a mix of patterns (verb_noun, noun_noun, adjective_noun) but are consistently lowercase with underscores. Some names are vague like 'forever' and 'recent_alerts', but overall readable.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but many are specialized and serve a broad data query platform. Some tools are meta-tools covering multiple use cases, which could reduce the need for so many.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data querying, entity resolution, comparisons, verification, memory, subscriptions, and prediction markets. Minor gaps like data export are not critical for its purpose.