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 description adds value by specifying it lists only active subscriptions by default and the return fields. No contradiction.
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 action and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No filler. Highly efficient.
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?
Lists all return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) which compensates for missing output schema. Covers purpose, usage, and default behavior. Could mention pagination or limits, but likely unnecessary for this tool.
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 covers the only parameter (include_inactive) with a description. Description adds minimal extra context by saying 'active' subscriptions by default, which relates to the parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, 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?
Clear verb 'List' with specific resource 'subscriptions' and explicit fields (id, type, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' which are write operations.
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?
States when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. Provides context but no direct 'when not to use' or alternatives beyond implied differentiation from 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 have heavily overlapping purposes, especially ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The Polymarket tools are more distinct, but the boundary between Maven search tools and broader discovery tools like search, search_by_coords, discover_tools, and suggest_questions is not always obvious.
Naming is a mix of snake_case actions, branded prefixes like ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_*, plus inconsistent patterns like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. Some clusters are internally consistent, but the overall set follows no predictable convention.
35 tools is heavy for a server named 'Maven Central', and only a handful actually relate to Maven artifacts. The rest are Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools, making the set feel sprawling rather than purpose-scoped.
For the Maven Central domain, search, coordinate lookup, version listing, and latest-version retrieval cover core read-only needs. However, there is no direct artifact metadata/POM/dependency inspection, and the unrelated Pipeworx and Polymarket tools dilute the surface without filling obvious gaps in the stated domain.