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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns a set of fields and that inactive subscriptions are excluded by default (with an optional parameter). This is valuable beyond 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?
Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and output fields; second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded with essential info.
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 the single parameter, rich annotations, and list of return fields provided in the description, the description is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
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%, so the schema fully describes the single parameter. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not exceptional.
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'), resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and provides a list of return fields. It distinguishes 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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. This provides clear context and implies when not to use (not for subscribing/unsubscribing).
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.
Tool purposes are largely distinct across domains (Jira, data queries, prediction markets), but there is overlap within domains, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded and multiple Polymarket edge analysis tools.
Naming mixes multiple conventions: jira_ prefix, pipeworx_ prefix, polymarket_ prefix, and plain verbs (remember, forget, recall). No consistent pattern across the entire set.
34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Jira' which only has 4 Jira-specific tools. The majority are unrelated Pipeworx and Polymarket tools, making the scope bloated.
Jira-specific tools are incomplete (missing create, update, delete). While Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are comprehensive, they are out of place for a Jira server, leaving gaps in its stated purpose.