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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context by listing the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral clarity.
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 concise sentences. The first states the action and return fields; the second gives practical usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the scope (caller's subscriptions), and typical use cases, so an agent can invoke it correctly without 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 only parameter (include_inactive) has a complete schema description, so the schema covers it fully. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling subscribe/unsubscribe tools. It also lists the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear context for when to use, though it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives explicitly.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all analyze prediction markets. The Lemmy tools are distinct from the Pipeworx tools, but within each cluster an agent could easily select the wrong tool despite lengthy descriptions.
Naming conventions are mixed: single nouns (post, community, site), verb_noun patterns (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and ad-hoc names (ask_pipeworx, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only pattern across the set, making it hard to predict tool names.
38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Lemmy' where only 7 tools (comments, communities, community, post, posts, search, site) actually relate to Lemmy. The vast majority of tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch and making the server feel bloated and unfocused.
For the Lemmy domain, the tools cover read-only browsing (list posts, view post, list communities, fetch community, comments, search, site metadata) but completely lack write operations like posting, commenting, voting, or moderation. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but do not compensate for the primary domain's gaps since the server is ostensibly about Lemmy.