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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). No 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: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No redundant text; 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?
Given the tool has 1 optional parameter and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and use cases. Lacks detailed return schema but lists fields.
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%, so the schema fully documents the include_inactive parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; 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?
The description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb (list) and resource (subscriptions). It distinguishes 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 provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It does not specify when not to use or name alternatives, but context is clear.
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 overlap enough to cause misselection: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both handle factual lookup/verification, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near duplicates in scope. The country/state/city tools are distinct but sit in a pile of unrelated Pipeworx tools, adding confusion.
All names are lower_snake_case and families like polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx* help group tools, but the verb_noun convention is inconsistent: entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while remember/forget/subscribe are bare verbs. It is readable but not a predictable pattern.
34 tools is above the practical ceiling for a focused MCP server, and the mismatch is severe: only 3 tools match the 'Country State City' name while 31 belong to a broad Pipeworx platform. A geographic server would need roughly 3-6 focused tools; this surface is bloted.
For the stated Country State City domain, list_countries/get_states/get_cities provide the basic hierarchy, but there is no city search, country/state detail lookup, or attribute discovery beyond the three list endpoints, making the useful geographic surface thin. For the Pipeworx domain the coverage is broader, but that confirms the identity mismatch and obscures the server's actual purpose.