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 mark it read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by explicitly listing the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying the 'caller's' scope. While it doesn't describe pagination or cancellation details, it exceeds the annotation baseline by detailing the response shape.
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 operation, then return fields, then usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose with 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?
The description covers what the tool returns, who the data belongs to, and when to use it. There is no output schema, so listing the return fields is especially valuable. With one optional parameter and clear sibling context, this is complete for the tool's complexity.
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%: the single parameter include_inactive is fully described in the input schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'active subscriptions' hints at the default behavior but doesn't explicitly connect to the parameter.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by being a read-only listing operation. The mention of returned fields further clarifies 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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to use it relative to subscribe/unsubscribe and gives clear use cases, forming a strong usage guideline.
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 nearly the same question-answering role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual queries, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The polymarket_* family also has overlapping opportunity-detection responsibilities, so an agent can easily select a near-duplicate tool for the same intent.
Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and use recognizable domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, datalastic_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set easy to group. The main deviation is that some names are verb-first (ask, compare, subscribe) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, bet_research), but this is minor and readable.
At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools or overlapping research/opportunity scanners that could be consolidated. The breadth is justified only partially; several utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.
As a general research and monitoring toolkit it covers the full life cycle: discover, ask, verify, compare, profile, cite, remember, subscribe, and alert. But the server is named Datalastic yet the maritime surface is thin (only live position and radius lookup, no historical tracking, port calls, or fleet tools), and a few one-off utilities don't fit a coherent domain.