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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds specific return fields and the optional include_inactive parameter, which is not contradicted by 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage, with 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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and provides usage context. It is complete enough for a simple list tool with strong annotations.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'active subscriptions' and 'cancelled subscriptions' which align with the include_inactive boolean, but does not elaborate further.
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 tool's function: 'List the caller's active subscriptions'. It also specifies the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This distinguishes it 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?
The description provides guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling tools cover related actions.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct but several ask_pipeworx variants and research tools overlap in purpose, which could lead to agent confusion. The presence of memory and subscription tools adds unrelated functionality.
Naming is inconsistent, mixing snake_case with varying verb patterns (ask, get, search, scan, etc.) and no clear convention. Some tools have descriptive phrases (e.g., generate_llms_txt) further breaking consistency.
34 tools is excessive for a coherent server, covering too many disparate domains (genes, data queries, betting, memory) without clear focus. A gene server should have far fewer tools.
Gene-related tools are complete for basic queries (search, get, resolve), but the server's main purpose (HGNC) is overshadowed by many unrelated Pipeworx tools, creating a mismatch. The overall surface is broad but lacks domain focus.