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, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context by listing the specific return fields and explaining the optional 'include_inactive' parameter meaning, which goes beyond the schema.
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 what it does and returns, the second gives usage guidance. Both are concise and valuable without any fluff.
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 one optional parameter, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, return fields, and usage, though it does not describe response format beyond field names.
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 clear description for the single parameter 'include_inactive'. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 the action ('List') and resource ('caller's active subscriptions'), and lists specific return fields. This distinguishes 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'). It does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the given guidance 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 tool groups overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same catalog; entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities cover overlapping company-data territory; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. Agents would frequently need to read long descriptions to pick the right tool.
All tool names use snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Minor inconsistencies exist: generic noun-only names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and bet_research, plus inconsistent prefixes (ask_, baltimore_, polymarket_, pipeworx_, scan_) that group by domain rather than action.
34 tools is on the heavy side for a data-access server, though the scope is broad. Several tools feel tangential to the core data mission (remember/recall/forget, generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), and the ask_pipeworx family plus the six polymarket_* tools inflate the count with overlapping functionality.
The surface covers the domain well: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions, baltimore_layers), lookup (ask_pipeworx, baltimore_query/recent), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), comparison (compare_entities), profiling (entity_profile), change tracking (recent_changes), and prediction-market analysis. Minor gaps include no direct web search and no Baltimore-specific export/bulk operations, but agents can work around these.