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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the return fields and that it lists active subscriptions (optionally inactive), which is consistent with annotations. No additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations indicate, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is two short sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous information; every sentence is essential.
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 the tool's simplicity, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and explicit listing of return fields in the description, the description is complete for its purpose. No output schema is needed as fields are enumerated.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter 'include_inactive' clearly described. The description does not add further parameter details beyond the schema, so 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 states the specific verb 'List' and resource 'the caller's active subscriptions', and lists the fields returned (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings 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?
The description gives explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. This implies when to use it, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but context from siblings provides sufficient differentiation.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all route queries to structured data), and the set mixes Deezer music tools with an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket suite. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool for a given request.
Naming is mixed: single-word nouns (album, artist, track, chart), verb_noun snake_case (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), and verbose multi-concept names (scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). No consistent pattern across the set.
37 tools for a server named 'Deezer' is far beyond a music API scope; the overwhelming majority are unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is an extreme mismatch between the server name and the tool surface.
For the Deezer music domain, the surface is incomplete (no playlists, user library, lyrics, or radio), while the many unrelated tools each cover only fragments of their domains. The overall set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.