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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds details on returned fields (id, type, params, dates, counts), enhancing transparency 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, front-loaded with core function, no superfluous words. 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 read tool with one optional parameter and complete annotations, the description covers usage, return fields, and purpose. No gaps.
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 good description for the single parameter. Description doesn't add additional meaning beyond the schema's own description.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'the caller's active subscriptions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe/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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use, but 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.
Some tools have near-identical purposes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_edges both find opportunities), but detailed descriptions and distinct input patterns mostly help an agent choose. A few discovery/verification tools (suggest_questions vs discover_tools, validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) also overlap, creating residual ambiguity.
All names are snake_case and many use domain prefixes (comtrade_, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the set mixes verb_noun (compare_entities, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). This inconsistency, plus the use of domain-specific prefixes as a substitute for a uniform verb_noun style, makes the naming pattern only moderately predictable.
35 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped range, and the vast majority (prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, npm dependency checks) have nothing to do with the server's apparent Comtrade trade-data purpose. This bloat makes the set feel unfocused, even though some meta-tools serve a general data-access mission.
For the Comtrade trade-data domain, the four comtrade_* tools cover country codes, top commodities, top partners, and detailed bilateral trade values — enough for most queries, with minor gaps like time-series trends or tariff lookups. For the broader Pipeworx data-access scope, the set is extensive (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, validate_claim, subscriptions), so no severe dead ends are apparent.