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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it returns the caller's own subscriptions and includes specific fields. This goes beyond annotations but doesn't contradict them, earning a solid 4.
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, front-loaded with the action and return fields. Every word contributes to understanding. It is compact without being under-specified, just the right size.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists return fields and provides usage guidance, covering the essentials. It doesn't mention default behavior (only active) explicitly, but that's implied and described in the schema. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for this low-complexity tool.
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% for the only parameter (include_inactive), which has a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but the schema fully documents it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no param-specific insights beyond what the schema provides.
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, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscriptions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing. It also enumerates the exact fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 a clear use case: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This explicitly tells users when to use the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives (e.g., subscribe/unsubscribe), but the context makes it obvious that this is for listing, not modifying subscriptions.
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.