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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns specific fields, only includes active subscriptions by default (with an option to include inactive ones), and is scoped to the caller. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second lists return fields and gives two clear use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
This is a simple tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, return fields, and typical usage scenarios. Annotations handle safety. The description 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'include_inactive'. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles it completely.
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 action ('List the caller's active subscriptions') with a specific verb and resource, and lists the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on review and retrieval.
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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context and practical guidance, effectively differentiating it from subscribe/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 are well-differentiated, with detailed descriptions clarifying their distinct purposes. However, there is some overlap between the multiple 'ask' tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) and between weather tools (forecast, latest_observations, recent_observations, warnings), which could cause confusion. Overall, ambiguity is low.
All 34 tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores (snake_case) pattern. Names are descriptive and predictable, such as 'ask_pipeworx', 'entity_profile', 'polymarket_arbitrage', etc. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
The server has 34 tools, which is on the higher side given its broad scope covering weather, company research, prediction markets, and general data queries. While not excessive, it could be split into more focused servers for clarity. The count feels a bit heavy but still manageable.
The tool set covers a wide range of data domains (weather, company financials, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions) with reasonable completeness. Minor gaps exist, such as limited weather coverage (Finland only) and no direct support for non-company entities or unofficial data sources, but core workflows are well-supported.