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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds specific return fields and the scope 'active subscriptions,' but does not elaborate on queries or limits. Still, it complements annotations well.
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 output, second provides usage context. No wordiness, and key information is 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 one optional parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, output fields, and usage. Minor omission: no mention of result ordering or limits, but not critical for this 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%, so description need not repeat parameter details. The parameter 'include_inactive' is documented in the schema, and the description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields (id, type, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by providing use cases.
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 advises when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This guides the agent effectively, though alternatives are implicitly differentiated rather than named.
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 tools occupy overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical entry points (beta currently behaves exactly like stable), while entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities all target company research. The prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) is large enough that an agent could easily select the wrong one.
Naming conventions are mixed throughout: verb_noun patterns (search_dois, list_repositories, validate_claim) coexist with noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, ai_visibility_check) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). The only consistent thread is snake_case, but the grammatical style is unpredictable.
At 34 tools, the server is overstuffed, especially given its apparent focus is DataCite but only 3 tools actually serve that domain (get_doi, search_dois, list_repositories). The rest are a grab bag of Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory, and subscription utilities that would be better split into separate focused servers.
The DataCite surface is incomplete (no DOI creation, update, or deletion despite DataCite supporting registration), while the Pipeworx surface has no direct fetch-by-URI tool for the pipeworx:// citations that other tools return. The presence of a duplicate beta router and a beta router with no active differences further muddies the coverage picture.