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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context beyond the annotations by listing the exact return fields and specifying the scope ('caller's active subscriptions'), which helps the agent understand what data will be retrieved. It does not contradict the 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, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, followed by use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy. Excellent conciseness.
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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the purpose, scope, return fields, and use cases. The only missing piece is the 'include_inactive' parameter, but the schema fully documents that. The description is complete for the agent to select and invoke 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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter description ('Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false)'), so the description doesn't need to explain the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about the 'include_inactive' parameter, but given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does mention return fields, which is not parameter semantics but adds some context.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It also specifies the return fields (id, type, params, etc.), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing existing subscriptions.
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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies when to use it relative to subscribe/unsubscribe, though it doesn't explicitly name those tools or state when not to use it. The alternatives are implied but not directly named.
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.
The set contains several heavily overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants (with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now) and six polymarket-related tools that all orbit edge detection, arbitrage, and fill risk. An agent choosing among bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_kalshi_spread would have a hard time picking the right one.
Most tools use readable snake_case, so the naming is not chaotic. However, the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are brand-style (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta), and some are noun-only phrases (events, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending). It is consistent in casing but not in structural convention.
32 tools is well beyond the usual well-scoped range, and the count is inflated by multiple near-duplicate clusters for querying, prediction markets, and memory/subscription utilities. For a server named Madrid Events, this is especially disproportionate since only one tool actually relates to Madrid events.
Relative to the Madrid Events name, the domain coverage is almost entirely missing: only events addresses the stated purpose, and it is read-only with no detail view, booking, or management operations. If interpreted as the broader Pipeworx platform, coverage is richer, but the server's stated identity makes the gap severe.