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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying the scope ('caller's active subscriptions') and the exact return fields, which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's behavior. It stops short of prescribing pagination or ordering details, but for a simple filtered list tool this is sufficient.
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 composed of two sentences, the first stating the main purpose, the second listing return fields and usage context. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what data it returns, and when to use it, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to guess.
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 schema covers the single parameter include_inactive with a complete description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond repeating the 'active' notion, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and further specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like subscribe or unsubscribe which perform different actions.
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 provides usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to subscribe (before adding) and unsubscribe (finding id), which is excellent guidance and distinguishes it from alternatives.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, differing only in response mode; bet_research and polymarket_edges both surface betting opportunities. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names are all snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_fact, list_breeds, validate_claim), some are noun/adjective compounds (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), and several use a pipeworx_ prefix. There is no consistent verb style or object-first convention.
34 tools is over the 25-tool threshold for a server whose name suggests a narrow cat-facts focus. Only 3 tools relate to cat facts; the rest form a sprawling data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel excessive and unfocused.
For the cat-facts domain, the set covers the essentials: single fact, multiple facts, and breed listing. However, the overall tool surface is a mix of unrelated capabilities (data lookups, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets) that don't form a coherent domain, leaving the cat-facts portion sparse and the broader set without clear lifecycle coverage.