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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific return fields, which is useful behavioral context 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: first states the main action and return fields, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return values, and usage advice. It is complete for the given complexity.
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, is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.
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 active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields (id, type, etc.), making the purpose distinct from siblings like subscribe or 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 advises using this to review existing subscriptions before adding more or to find an id for cancellation, providing clear context but not explicitly excluding alternative tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) share similar routing and could cause confusion for an agent. The memory tools and novelty tool are distinct. Overall, ambiguity is low.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Minor deviations like 'search_within' and 'magic_8_ball_ask' do not break the pattern. High consistency.
With 32 tools, the server is on the heavier side for a single MCP server. However, given the broad domain coverage (financials, economics, prediction markets, etc.), each tool serves a distinct purpose. Bordering on too many, but justified by scope.
The tool surface covers a comprehensive range of data research operations: querying, deep research, entity profiling, comparisons, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, claim validation, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (no data modification tools), but they are out of scope for a query-oriented server.