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 indicate the tool is read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds specific behavior beyond annotations: it returns the caller's active subscriptions only, and enumerates the exact fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This clarifies scope and output format that the annotations do not cover.
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 long, front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, and immediately follows with return fields and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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, strong annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells what it lists, what fields are returned, and when to use it, covering all essential context an agent needs.
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% for the only parameter ('include_inactive'), so the schema fully explains its meaning. The description doesn't mention the parameter, but it doesn't need to—the schema handles it. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'caller's active subscriptions', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also lists the return fields, which further clarifies what the tool produces, and distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 explicitly says to use this tool to review what you're monitoring before adding more subscriptions or to find an ID to cancel, which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but implies that this is the read tool to precedes '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.
Several tools have overlapping or poorly distinguished purposes. For instance, `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_beta` have nearly identical descriptions, and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` also shares the same routing but adds a different output format. The `ai_visibility_check` and `scan_competitor_ai_presence` tools also overlap significantly.
There is some consistency with verb_noun patterns (e.g., `resolve_entity`, `search_within`, `subscribe`, `unsubscribe`). However, there are many deviations: `ask_pipeworx`, `pipeworx_feedback`, `pipeworx_trending`, `entity_profile`, `scan_dependency`, and `polymarket_edges` break the pattern, mixing descriptive names with non-standard prefixes.
37 tools is slightly above the ideal range for a single MCP server, but the tools cover a very broad and varied domain (IETF data, company research, prediction markets, package scanning, memory, etc.). The count is high but still within a manageable scope for a multi-purpose utility server.
The server combines tools from two very different domains: IETF Datatracker (document/WG/person lookups) and Pipeworx (data retrieval, prediction markets, company analysis). The IETF-related tools are sparse and incomplete (only document search, document, person, wg, wgs_search, rfc are present—no ability to create or modify records). The Pipeworx side is extensive but leaves notable gaps (e.g., no tool for submitting comments or editing IETF documents).