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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and confirming it lists only active subscriptions by default, which goes beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action and return fields, the second provides usage guidance. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and usage context. It could mention pagination or the structure of 'params', but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations.
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 fully documents the single optional parameter include_inactive with a default behavior, so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on the read-only listing action.
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 use cases: review current monitoring before adding more subscriptions and find an ID to cancel. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and 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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions with subtle differences that are hard to distinguish (beta is currently identical to the stable version). Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, polymarket_fill_risk) similarly overlap in opportunity-finding. Entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also share company-research territory.
All tool names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the structural pattern varies widely: some are verb_noun (get_data, search_tables), some are noun_phrase (table_dimensions, entity_profile), some are brand-prefixed (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and the memory tools (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern entirely. Mixed conventions make the set feel less coherent.
With 36 tools, the set is heavy, and the server name 'Cbs Nl' implies a focused CBS statistics dataset, yet most tools cover unrelated domains (Polymarket, AI visibility, npm dependencies). Even as a general data-research platform, the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'heavy', and many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the three ask_pipeworx variants).
As a general data-research platform, the tool surface is fairly complete: discovery (discover_tools, search_tables, suggest_questions), metadata (table_info, table_dimensions), retrieval (get_data, ask_pipeworx, deep_research), validation (validate_claim, compare_entities), and supporting features (memory, subscriptions, feedback). Minor gaps include no explicit tool to manipulate data or manage sources, but for a read-heavy research assistant, the coverage is strong.