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 the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying that only the caller's subscriptions are listed and that it returns specific fields like created_at and fire_count.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The most critical information (what it lists, what fields it returns, and when to use it) is front-loaded and efficient.
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 and no output schema required, the description provides all necessary information: scope (caller's subscriptions), return fields, and usage recommendations. No gaps.
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 schema fully covers the single optional parameter include_inactive with its description. The description's mention of 'active subscriptions' implicitly adds context for the parameter's effect, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the return fields (id, type, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by framing the purpose as reviewing before adding or finding an id 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?
Description explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly name 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.
The set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) occupy the same prediction-market space, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. A few tools (memory triad, gsc_* calls) are crisp, but the boundaries between the meta-research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, validate_claim) are not obvious enough to prevent misselection.
Naming is a mixed bag: some tools follow snake_case verb_noun (gsc_list_sites, resolve_entity, search_within), others are lowercased concatenations (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and several are bare nouns or adjectives (recent_alerts, forget, recall, process). There is no consistent verb style or separator convention across the set.
35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them (gsc_list_sites, gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_inspect_url, gsc_search_analytics) relate to the server's stated Google Search Console purpose. The remaining 31 are a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market/memory toolkit, making the count wildly disproportionate to the apparent scope.
For a Google Search Console server, the surface is severely incomplete: it can list sites/sitemaps, inspect URLs, and query analytics, but lacks sitemap submission, property add/remove, URL removal/access control, and other core GSC operations. Conversely, the 31 off-domain tools make the domain itself incoherent — an agent cannot tell what this server is actually for.