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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It adds value by listing the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.), providing transparency about the output beyond the schema.
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, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is provided efficiently.
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, the description covers purpose, return format, and usage context. Annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the description lists fields, which is sufficient.
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% and the parameter 'include_inactive' is already described in the schema. The description adds only implicit context by saying 'active subscriptions' (default) but doesn't explicitly explain the parameter's effect beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing rather than creating or removing.
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 this tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. This provides clear context and implicitly tells when not to use it (e.g., for subscribing or unsubscribing).
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.
Some tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple Polymarket analysis tools) but descriptions help differentiate. Odoo-specific tools are distinct among themselves but muddled with many general-purpose tools.
Naming is heavily inconsistent: Odoo tools follow 'odoo_list_*' pattern while others use varied structures like verb-first (forget, remember) or noun-first (entity_profile, recent_alerts). No unified verb_noun pattern across the set.
At 32 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15) but is not excessively large. Many tools are generic and could be trimmed, making the set feel heavier than necessary.
Despite many tools, the server lacks essential CRUD operations for Odoo (e.g., create/update/delete leads) and the 'Odoo' name misrepresents the actual focus. Gaps in Odoo functionality and mixed domains create a sense of incompleteness.