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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. Description adds return field details (id, type, params, timestamps, fire_count) and usage intent, but does not contradict annotations. Minor missed opportunity to explicitly state no side effects, but annotations already convey safety.
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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description, combined with rich annotations and schema, is complete. It covers purpose, return fields, and usage. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing fields in the description.
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 a clear description for the single optional parameter include_inactive. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Description states 'List the caller's active subscriptions', specifying verb (list), resource (subscriptions), and scope (caller's active). It lists return fields and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by indicating when to use it: to review before adding more or to find an ID 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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear context for when to use (before subscribing or to get cancellation IDs) and implying alternatives (subscribe and 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes and the descriptions are unusually thorough, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and several discovery/prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage, discover_tools vs suggest_questions) occupy overlapping territory. An agent could reasonably route to the wrong variant despite the documentation.
The dominant convention is lowercase snake_case with a leading verb (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, resolve_entity), which makes the set predictable. A few noun-first outliers like pipeworx_trending, recent_alerts, and polymarket_edge_tracker are minor deviations rather than a broken pattern.
34 tools is well above the coherence sweet spot for an MCP server, and much of that count is made up of meta-wrappers and convenience variants around the same Pipeworx router. The broad scope explains some of the count, but the surface still feels heavy for a single named server.
The Pipeworx side is very complete: lookups, grounded verification, research, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction-market fill checks, subscriptions, and memory all have lifecycle coverage. However, the server is named Obis and only find_occurrences, get_statistics, and get_taxon serve that domain, leaving obvious marine-biodiversity operations like occurrence detail, dataset listing, and download paths missing.