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 indicate safe read operation; description adds value by specifying return fields and default behavior (active only). No contradictions.
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, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Despite no output schema, description fully explains return fields and typical usage, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so description doesn't need to add more. 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?
The description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and specifies the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and 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?
Explicitly guides when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Could more directly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
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 mixes near-synonymous routers (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), overlapping discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), and several prediction-market scanners (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) whose boundaries are easy to blur. The six onedrive_* tools are distinct, but they are buried in an unrelated toolkit where multiple tools appear to address the same task.
Naming is split across several conventions: onedrive_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* form consistent clusters, but top-level tools use bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, compare_entities), and varied styles (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). The pattern is readable within clusters, but not predictable across the server.
37 tools is heavy, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the server's name 'Onedrive' — only 6 of 37 target OneDrive, while 31 span Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, and web utilities. This is a sprawling multi-domain bundle rather than a focused server.
As a OneDrive server, the surface is severely incomplete: it offers read-only coverage (list, search, get, profile, shared) but no upload, create, update, move, copy, delete, or share operations, and binary Office/PDF content returns unreadable bytes. The Pipeworx tools are individually comprehensive, but they do not fill the basic lifecycle gaps for the server's apparent file-management domain.