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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it operates only on the caller's subscriptions, returns specific fields, and defaults to active subscriptions (implied by the include_inactive parameter). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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: the first states the action and return fields, the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every sentence 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 no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the operation, scope, return fields, and practical use cases, leaving no critical 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (include_inactive), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource: 'the caller's active subscriptions'. It also lists return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe/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?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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 nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly duplicating ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) also heavily overlaps, and ai_visibility_check is a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would frequently be unable to tell which tool to select.
All names are snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe), and several are noun-first domain names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile). There is no uniform verb convention, and the mix makes it hard to predict what a tool does from its name.
At 33 tools, this is well above the 'heavy' threshold and includes several near-duplicates: three ask_pipeworx variants and six polymarket_* tools. While the underlying platform is broad, this meta-layer could be consolidated to 15-20 tools without losing capability.
The core data-query workflow is well covered: ask, deep research, entity profile, compare, validate, resolve ID, and search inside documents. The memory lifecycle (remember/recall/forget) and subscription lifecycle (subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe) are also complete. However, the set includes unrelated utilities (generate_paragraphs, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) that don't belong to the main data domain, and there is no direct tool to execute a raw discovered tool by name.