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 cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds context about the caller-scoped list and the return fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or permission requirements. This is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return fields, followed by practical use cases. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The sibling context reinforces its role relative to subscribe/unsubscribe, and annotations cover safety.
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 single optional parameter. The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' aligns with the schema's default for include_inactive, but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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, a specific resource, and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing rather than creating or canceling.
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 monitoring before adding more subscriptions or find an id to cancel. It implies the alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) but does not directly name them or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language data questions. The six Polymarket/prediction-market tools also blur together, and ai_visibility_check versus scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates.
Snake_case is used consistently, and most tools follow a verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile, resource_data, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, but nothing is chaotic or mixed-cased.
33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Data Gov In' whose actual domain-specific surface is only resource_data and resource_meta. The rest are generic Pipeworx, prediction-market, memory, and utility tools that do not belong to the apparent India open-data scope.
For a data.gov.in server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to search or list datasets/resources, only fetch metadata and data for a known resourceId. The overwhelming majority of tools serve unrelated domains, so an agent using this server for Indian government data will hit dead ends immediately.