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?
The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying the return fields and stating the default behavior (active subscriptions only). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's extra detail about output shape is a meaningful supplement. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences, the first states the action and output, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content; front-loaded with the main verb.
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 purpose, return fields, and usage context. The safety profile is already captured by annotations, and the sibling relationships are clear. Nothing critical is missing.
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 only parameter, include_inactive, is fully described in the schema ('Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false)'). The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 the tool lists 'the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe while providing a specific verb, resource, and scope.
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 says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' giving direct guidance on when to use the tool and implicitly contrasting with subscribe/unsubscribe. This is clear, actionable usage context.
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: the four ask_pipeworx variants all route to the same 5,581 tools (ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to stable), and the six polymarket_* tools have subtle boundaries between research, edges, and arbitrage that could cause misselection. That said, the descriptions are unusually detailed, and non-overlapping clusters (CSO table tools, memory tools, subscription tools) are clearly distinct.
All names are snake_case and mostly verb-first (get_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but conventions are inconsistent: polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are brand/noun-first while bet_research and ask_pipeworx put the verb first for the same domains, and some tools are pure nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts). The pattern is readable but far from predictable.
At 35 tools the server is well past the 25+ 'too many' threshold for a single MCP. Several tools don't earn their place: ask_pipeworx_beta is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the six polymarket tools plus four ask_pipeworx variants represent heavy redundancy for what are essentially two sub-domains.
The data-access core is covered end to end: discovery (discover_tools, list_datasets, suggest_questions), structured reads (ask_pipeworx, get_dataset, query_dataset), grounded verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), comparison (compare_entities), change tracking (recent_changes), plus memory and subscription CRUD. Minor gaps: subscriptions can't be edited (only recreated) and unrelated utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) dilute the focus rather than fill a real gap.