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 cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, not destructive. Description adds that it returns specific fields and includes optional parameter for inactive subscriptions, but no further behavioral traits.
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 purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary 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?
Given simple tool with one optional parameter and complete annotations, description covers purpose, return fields, and usage context adequately without needing output schema.
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% with one parameter described; description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema definition.
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?
Description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb (list) and resource (subscriptions), and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/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?
Provides explicit when-to-use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. Implicitly guides not to use for subscribing or canceling, but does not name sibling tools explicitly.
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 multiple near-duplicate meta-query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools) and five overlapping Polymarket analysis tools, creating genuine selection ambiguity despite detailed descriptions. The single events tool is distinct, but it is drowned out by a crowd of similar data-research utilities.
Almost all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim, remember, forget). Only 'events' deviates by being a bare noun, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
32 tools is extreme for a server named 'Montreal Events', and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The remaining 31 form a sprawling, unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and memory toolkit that would overwhelm any agent trying to work with Montréal event data.
For the server's stated purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: a single read-only event search with no event details, venue info, categories, or management operations. The Pipeworx tools may cover their own domain thoroughly, but they contribute nothing to the Montreal Events scope.