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 safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. Description adds context about returned data and optional parameter for inactive subscriptions, no contradictions.
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: first states action and return fields, second gives usage. No redundancies, perfectly front-loaded.
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 simplicity (list with bool param, no output schema), description covers purpose, return, usage, and parameter. Annotations cover safety. Complete.
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 has 100% coverage with description for include_inactive. Description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what 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?
Clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies return fields. Differentiates from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on reading.
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 to review monitoring before adding more subscriptions or to find an ID to cancel. No alternatives mentioned, 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 clearly distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx trio (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the polymarket cluster (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) could cause confusion without careful reading. However, the detailed descriptions effectively differentiate each tool's specific role.
All tool names follow consistent snake_case convention with a verb-noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions or chaotic naming, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 34 tools, the set is extensive but justified by the server's broad scope covering Vermont open data, Pipeworx data platform, prediction markets, and utility features. Each tool earns its place, though the count is slightly high compared to typical servers.
The tool surface covers data retrieval, entity analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and claim validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct compliance tools), but the set is comprehensive for its stated purpose of data integration and analysis.