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 readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds the scope (caller's subscriptions) and returned fields, providing useful behavioral context 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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and returned fields, second gives 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?
For a simple list tool with strong annotations and full schema param coverage, the description is complete. It covers why and when to use it, and lists return fields.
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% with a clear description of the only parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifies returned fields, and distinguishes 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 provides explicit usage scenarios: review before adding more subscriptions or find an ID to cancel. While it doesn't list alternatives directly, the 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.
Several tools are difficult to distinguish: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx have fuzzy boundaries. The polymarket_* family plus bet_research also overlap heavily, requiring agents to carefully parse long descriptions to avoid misselection.
Naming is predominantly snake_case with a verb-first pattern (ask_, search, subscribe, unsubscribe, list_) and clear prefix families like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. Minor deviations like ai_visibility_check and entity_profile use noun-first phrasing, but the overall pattern is still predictable and readable.
33 tools is heavy for any single server, and the count is especially inappropriate given the server is named Digitalnz but only two tools (search, record) serve that domain. The rest form an unrelated grab-bag of data research, prediction-market, AI-visibility, memory, and utility tools.
The research workflow is fairly well covered: ask/grounded/deep modes, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, and alerts all exist. However, the DigitalNZ surface is nearly absent—just search and record—which is a significant gap for the declared server name, while other domains like AI visibility and npm dependencies are isolated one-offs.