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). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds that it returns specific fields and defaults to active subscriptions, but no further behavioral disclosure needed beyond 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: first defines purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers return fields and typical use cases, making it complete enough for an AI agent.
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 boolean parameter. Description does not elaborate on include_inactive beyond the schema, but the schema already suffices.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, etc.). Distinguishes 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?
Explicitly says when to use: 'before adding more' subscriptions or to 'find an id to cancel'. Does not mention when not to use, but context 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the several polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) have overlapping prediction-market territory. Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlaps could still cause misselection.
The majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt). A few tools deviate with noun/adjective prefixes (montreal_datasets, montreal_recent, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) or single verbs (remember, recall, forget), but the overall style is consistent and readable.
At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct role, the sheer number—spanning data access, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools—makes the surface harder for agents to navigate compared to a more focused server.
For its broad data-gateway purpose, the server covers a wide range: lookups, research, entity resolution, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The Montreal-specific subset (datasets, query, recent) is adequate for the apparent scope, with only minor gaps like no subscription-update tool.