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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements. No contradiction with 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?
The description is concise with two sentences: the first states purpose and return fields, the 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 annotations and one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or response structure, but given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is adequately complete.
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 single parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema with a default of false. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and schema coverage is 100%, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 'List the caller's active subscriptions', providing a specific verb and resource. It lists the fields returned (id, type, params, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by explaining it is for reviewing monitored items and finding ids to cancel.
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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context and usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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 deliberately near-identical variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) or have overlapping routing/query purposes (deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The Polymarket cluster also has five tools that all surface 'edges' or 'arbitrage' with only subtle differences. Only the three GeoNet tools and the memory trio are cleanly distinct.
The dominant style is snake_case, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, verb/noun patterns vary widely across the set: some tools begin with verbs (get_quake, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, volcano_alerts, recent_changes), and some are plain nouns (polymarket_arbitrage). Readable but not a single predictable convention.
34 tools is well above the 'heavy' threshold, and the server is named 'Geonet Nz' while only 3 of its 34 tools relate to GeoNet. The overwhelming majority are Pipeworx/data/prediction-market tools, making the server's scope massively broader than its name implies. The count itself is not unreasonable for the actual feature sprawl, but it is inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
Taking the real scope as 'general authoritative data research + memory + subscriptions + a little GeoNet', the surface is quite complete: query entry points, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, monitoring subscriptions, memory persistence, and feedback are all present. The GeoNet-specific subset is also adequate (get one, list recent, volcano alerts). Minor gaps exist, like no general GeoNet station/well data or subscription editing, but nothing causes dead ends.