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 cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: returns specific fields, defaults to active subscriptions, and explains the include_inactive parameter. No contradictions.
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 with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: first explains what the tool does, second gives usage advice.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return fields, default behavior, and usage context. Annotations handle safety.
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%, and the parameter's description in the schema is clear. The tool description does not add further meaning 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 clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing existing subscriptions.
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 guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' While it doesn't list alternatives, it gives clear when-to-use context.
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.
There are several clusters of tools with overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all do data-fetching/research with somewhat subtle differences. Polymarket tools also overlap (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research, polymarket_kalshi_spread). However, most tools have detailed descriptions that clarify their distinct roles, and the core data-lookup tools are differentiated by grounding level and scope.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., search_registrants, list_foreign_principals, get_registrant_documents, subscribe, unsubscribe, remember, recall, forget, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Deviations include brand-name tools like ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, and polymarket_kalshi_spread that mix conventions but are still readable and predictable within their domain.
34 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, especially with multiple overlapping research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The broad data-router nature of the server explains the size, but it is still a large surface that would be better consolidated.
The server covers its visible domains well: data lookup, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparison, change tracking, subscription lifecycle, memory, and FARA-specific queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for updating saved memory beyond forgetting/re-remembering, no tool to create custom alert types beyond the three supported categories), but the core workflows are complete.