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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds return field details and scope ('caller's subscriptions'), no contradictions.
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 plus a usage line, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: purpose first, then returns, then usage guidance.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists return fields and gives usage guidance. It is sufficient for a simple list tool, though lacks pagination or limit details, which are not critical.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'include_inactive' is fully documented in the schema. Description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and 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?
Explicitly advises using it 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' providing context for when to use. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but it implicitly points to subscribe/unsubscribe.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with extra verification. Malware sample searches also overlap across search_family, search_tag, search_signature, and recent_samples, while ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence.
The set mostly uses snake_case and verb-first names like get_sample_info and validate_claim, which is helpful. However, conventions are mixed across ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, search_*, and noun-style names like recent_samples and entity_profile, so there is no single predictable pattern.
36 tools is already over the comfortable range, but the bigger issue is that the server is named Malwarebazaar while only about five tools actually deal with malware. The remaining tools belong to an unrelated data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, making the count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.
For the MalwareBazaar domain, the set covers metadata lookups and filtered sample searches but lacks sample submission, retrieval, or deeper analysis workflow. The rest of the tool surface targets unrelated domains, so there is no coherent, complete lifecycle for either malware intelligence or the broader feature set.