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 declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral context beyond these annotations by specifying caller scope and the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which is valuable for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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, each purposeful: the first states the function and return shape, the second states when to use it. No filler or redundant phrases, making it highly concise 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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return values, and usage context. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the return fields explicitly.
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 describes include_inactive with 100% coverage including its default value, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'active subscriptions' aligns with the default but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 explicitly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe, which perform different actions.
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 usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This indirectly references subscribe and unsubscribe, giving clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not name the alternative tools directly.
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 clusters heavily overlap: multiple ask_pipeworx variants, five polymarket_* tools, and company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) all have similar purposes. An agent would frequently need to read long descriptions to distinguish between them, and some boundaries remain unclear.
Naming mixes verb-first styles (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, subscribe) with noun-only names (kp_index, solar_wind, alerts), and disjointed prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). There is no uniform verb_noun or other consistent convention across the set.
38 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, especially for a server ostensibly dedicated to NOAA space weather. The count feels bloated, with many tools unrelated to the server's stated purpose.
The server name implies space-weather coverage, and that domain has only a handful of tools (alerts, kp_index, solar_wind, etc.), leaving gaps (no proton flux, no Dst index). Meanwhile, the extensive non-space-weather tools are over-provisioned and their inclusion makes the overall surface incoherent and impossible to navigate as a complete domain.