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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and the default scope (active subscriptions). It does not contradict 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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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?
The tool has low complexity with 1 optional parameter. The description covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but for a standard list tool this is acceptable. Output schema is absent but return fields are described.
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 input schema has 1 parameter (include_inactive) with a full description. Schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by being a read-only list operation.
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 advises when to use this tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear guidance and implies alternatives (subscribe/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 unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The prediction-market cluster also has six tools whose distinctions require careful reading, making mis-selection likely.
Most names are lowercase snake_case and reasonably descriptive, but no consistent verb_noun pattern holds across the set. entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_imei are verbs, and the useful ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* prefixes are not applied server-wide.
33 tools is too many for an agent to navigate efficiently, especially since the underlying data surface is already hidden behind ask_pipeworx and dozens more tools. The set spans data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, IMEI validation, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, making it feel like a grab bag rather than a focused server.
The main query/verify/research/monitor workflow is covered well: ask, grounded, deep research, claim validation, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory all exist, so common paths have few dead ends. However, the set is not a single coherent domain, and there is no direct fetch/read-record tool or prediction-market execution tool, leaving some reasonable follow-up actions implicit.