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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the list of returned fields and implies default behavior (only active subscriptions), but no further significant 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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action and return fields, the second gives usage guidance. No filler, every sentence adds value.
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 no output schema, the description covers return fields and usage context. Annotations provide safety guarantees. Could be improved by noting pagination, but it's not essential given the likely limited data.
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 has one parameter with a description, and coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscriptions'), and clearly states the scope ('caller's active'). It also enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings.
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.
There are three ask_pipeworx variants that overlap heavily, plus five polymarket_* tools scanning similar market edges, and meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research that blur together. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap. The Cloudflare Radar tools are distinct, but they are a small minority in a sea of overlapping data/prediction-market tools.
Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, scan_dependency), some are noun_phrase (bgp_leaks, internet_quality, radar_domain_rank), and some use vendor-prefixed naming inconsistently (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs pipeworx_trending). It is readable but not predictable.
37 tools is heavy for any single server, and the collection spans unrelated domains: Cloudflare Radar, Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning. The count feels like a bundled platform rather than a focused tool set, and many tools could be split into separate servers.
The Pipeworx data-research side is quite complete (ask, grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, validate_claim, resolve_entity, discover_tools, recent_changes), and the prediction-market side has good coverage (edges, arbitrage, fill risk, cross-venue spread, tracking). However, the Cloudflare Radar portion is thin—only six tools cover a service known for many more traffic/attack/outage metrics—and the overall surface has no cohesive domain to judge completeness against.