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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description confirms read-only nature but adds little beyond annotations; it mentions return fields and default active subscriptions, which is adequate but not exceptional.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage advice. 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?
Given no output schema, the description lists all return fields. It covers the parameter behavior (active by default) and usage scenarios. Complete for a simple list tool.
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 optional parameter 'include_inactive'. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's description, 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?
The description clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and lists the return fields (id, type, params, etc.). 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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides clear context for usage.
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 distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and the five polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have overlapping functionality that could confuse an agent if descriptions are not carefully parsed. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are clear. Overall, the set is mostly disambiguated.
Tool names use snake_case consistently, but naming patterns vary: some follow verb_noun (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), others are noun_noun (e.g., bet_research, entity_profile), and a few are single verbs (e.g., recall, remember, forget, subscribe). This mixed pattern reduces predictability, though the names are still readable.
At 35 tools, the server is overly broad, covering Belgian rail, Pipeworx data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more. The server name 'Irail' suggests a focused rail toolset, but rail is only a small part. This scope mismatch and high tool count make it feel bloated and less coherent.
Within each subdomain, the tool surface is fairly complete. Belgian rail has journey planning, liveboard, train tracking, and disturbances. Data querying has universal, grounded, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, recent changes, and claim validation. Prediction markets have arbitrage, edge detection, edge tracking, fill risk, and cross-venue spread. Memory and subscriptions are covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for deleting entities or canceling orders), but overall coverage is strong.