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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.) and noting the default behavior (active only). No contradiction with 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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The most important information (what it does and returned fields) comes first, followed by usage guidance.
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's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and return fields. It provides complete context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'active' and 'id to cancel' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 explicitly states what the tool does: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (subscriptions). The tool name and title are directly reflected, and it distinguishes from siblings 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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to use it (before subscribe/unsubscribe) and what to get (id for cancellation).
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 are near-identical in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly the same right now, while ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily. The only DMV-specific tool is otherwise buried among generic research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools that an agent would struggle to separate.
Most tools use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), some are brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and ask_pipeworx lacks a conventional verb pattern. Still readable, but not a cohesive naming scheme.
32 tools is already heavy, but nearly all of them are unrelated to the stated Connecticut DMV scope. The server would be better served by a handful of DMV-focused tools; the current count is an extreme mismatch between name and content.
The only DMV tool is ct_dmv_ev_registrations, covering EV registration counts from a single February 2025 snapshot. There is no general vehicle registration lookup, driver licensing, plate/ VIN search, appointment, or form coverage, so the DMV domain is severely incomplete.