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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. Description adds return field details but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits.
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, zero waste. Purpose and usage are front-loaded, no redundant information.
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?
Given one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and usage context. Could mention default filter (active only) but it's implied by parameter.
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% for the single parameter (include_inactive). Description does not elaborate beyond 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?
Clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies returned fields (id, type, etc.). Verb 'list' and resource 'subscriptions' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe.
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?
Provides explicit context: use to review monitoring before adding more or to find id for cancellation. Lacks explicit when-not but offers clear practical use cases.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but the multiple Pipeworx query variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple Polymarket tools could cause some confusion. However, descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate them.
Naming patterns are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (list_subscriptions, open_bids_search), others use noun_phrase (entity_profile, bet_research), and cases are inconsistent (snake_case vs underscores). While not chaotic, the lack of a strong consistent pattern reduces coherence.
33 tools is high, and the server's name 'Gov Bids' suggests a focused scope, but most tools are unrelated (AI visibility, npm packages, general data queries). The tool count feels excessive for a focused server, and the scope is too broad.
For a general-purpose data server, the tool set is quite comprehensive across multiple domains (SEC, FDA, economics, prediction markets, etc.). Minor gaps exist (e.g., government contracts beyond bids), but overall coverage is strong.