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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, so the description builds on that by noting the scope ('caller's subscriptions') and the return structure. It adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 with no wasted words. Clearly states what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Efficient 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, return values, usage context, and scope. No missing critical information.
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 the single parameter already fully described in the schema. The description does not add any further clarification on the parameter, so baseline 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?
Describes the tool as listing the caller's active subscriptions, specifying the resource and action. It also indicates the returned fields and provides usage context, making the purpose unmistakable. While sibling tools subscribe/unsubscribe exist, the description clearly distinguishes by focusing on listing.
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.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, though the sibling context implies differentiation.
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.
Multiple Pipeworx tools overlap significantly (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all query similar data). Close CRM tools are distinct but the overall set mixes two domains, causing confusion.
Tool names mix snakes (close_get_lead), lowercase (ask_pipeworx), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the entire set.
37 tools is excessive for a focused server. The combination of Close CRM and Pipeworx data services creates scope creep; many tools could be separate servers.
Pipeworx tools offer extensive data coverage, but Close CRM lacks update/delete operations for leads, contacts, and opportunities, leaving basic CRUD gaps.