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=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context by listing the exact return fields and noting the default excludes inactive subscriptions, which informs the agent about the tool's scoping and output shape.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then return fields, then usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence contributes value.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential details: scope, return fields, default behavior, and when to use it. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.
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 schema description for include_inactive is fully self-explanatory ('Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false)'), and the tool description does not add further meaning to it. Since schema coverage is 100%, this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by mentioning its use for reviewing what you're monitoring and finding ids to cancel.
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 tells when to use this tool ('before adding more' or 'to find an id to cancel'), which implies the alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) without explicitly naming them. This provides clear situational guidance.
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.
There are several clusters of tools with overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to data sources; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all provide company research. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent could easily misselect among these near-duplicates, especially since ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now.
Placeholder for naming consistency placeholder
34 tools for a server named Newsapi is an extreme scope mismatch. Only three tools (everything, top_headlines, sources) are news-related; the rest cover data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and package scanning, which belongs in separate servers. The count is also past the 25+ range that feels overloaded for any single purpose.
The three NewsAPI tools themselves cover the standard news surface (top_headlines, everything, sources) with no major gaps. However, the server's stated purpose is diluted by ~30 unrelated tools, and the non-news tools form an incoherent assortment with no clear unified domain to assess completeness against. The mismatch makes completeness hard to reason about and degrades the overall usefulness.