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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it returns 'active subscriptions' by default and listing the response fields, which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff.
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 one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so no critical information is missing. The openWorldHint is not elaborated, but it is not essential for a straightforward read operation.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter include_inactive with its meaning and default value (100% schema coverage). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also enumerates the exact fields returned, making it clear what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on read-only listing.
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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to employ this tool versus alternatives like subscribe or unsubscribe.
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 distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions. Some overlap exists, especially among research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and prediction market tools, but boundaries are clear enough for an agent to differentiate.
The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_cpi, list_subscriptions). A few deviations exist (e.g., forget, recall, pipeworx_feedback using a prefix), but overall the pattern is predictable.
With 34 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. While it covers many domains, the high number makes the set feel heavy and harder to navigate, warranting a score of 2 according to calibration.
The tool set is comprehensive for its broad scope, covering economic data, company research, prediction markets, and utilities. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing explicit GDP or stock quote tools), but the powerful ask_pipeworx meta-tool fills many gaps.