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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.) and scoping to the caller's active subscriptions, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage tip. Every word contributes value with no redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. Annotations cover safety semantics, and the schema covers parameter details, leaving no significant gaps in the information needed to 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 sole parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but the schema carries the burden, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the caller's active subscriptions.' It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe which perform mutations.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implicitly references the sibling subscribe and unsubscribe tools, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives, so it falls just short of a perfect score.
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 tool groups heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all route to the same 5,798-tool catalog and compete for the same 'answer this question' use case. The Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker) also all detect betting opportunities, making it easy to pick the wrong one.
Naming conventions are mixed: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), adjective_noun (recent_changes, deep_research), and get_* for the MHW tools. All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent structural pattern across the set.
35 tools is too many for a coherent server, and the bulk of them (31 tools) are unrelated to the server's apparent 'Mhw' identity, which covers only 4 Monster Hunter World tools. The set reads like three separate servers (MHW game data, Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting) merged into one.
For a server named 'Mhw', the MHW surface is severely incomplete: armor, monsters, skills, and weapons exist, but quests, items, decorations, crafting, and locations are missing. The non-MHW tools are broad but belong to a different domain, so the server does not come close to covering its apparent intended purpose.