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 the tool safe (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds value by detailing return fields and scoping to caller's subscriptions, but lacks mention of potential pagination or rate limits, which are absent due to simplicity.
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 front-load purpose and return info, then usage guidance. No superfluous content.
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 and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return shape, and usage context. No gaps.
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 single parameter include_inactive is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting but not exceeding expectations with 100% coverage.
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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies returned fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like subscribe or unsubscribe, though the purpose is distinct.
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 advises when to use the tool: to review monitored items before adding more or to find an ID to cancel. This is clear and actionable.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, or bet_research and polymarket_edges. The mix of CRM, data, and betting tools creates confusion about which tool to use for a given task.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx) with prefixed names (leadconnector_*) and no clear pattern. Some names are vague (forget, remember) while others are specific.
With 32 tools, the set feels overstuffed for a server named 'Leadconnector'. Many tools are unrelated to CRM (e.g., Polymarket, Pipeworx), and the CRM subset is too small to justify the count.
For the Leadconnector CRM domain, only basic read operations are provided; missing create, update, delete for contacts, campaigns, and opportunities. The non-CRM tools are comprehensive but don't match the server's name.