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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds output fields and usage context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits.
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: first sentence 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 is complete. It specifies output fields and usage context, which is sufficient for correct invocation.
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% for the single parameter 'include_inactive', and its description is already in the schema. The tool description does not add any further meaning, so baseline of 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 the action 'List' and the resource 'caller's active subscriptions' with specific output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by its purpose.
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 advises to use this tool to review subscriptions before adding more or to find an ID to cancel, providing clear context for use. It does not mention when not to use it, but the guidance is helpful.
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 three ask_pipeworx variants are near-identical (the beta is currently an exact copy of the stable router), and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying source catalog. The six polymarket_* tools also heavily overlap in opportunity detection, though some clusters like memory and subscriptions are clearly separated.
The naming is mostly snake_case but mixes conventions: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), metadata-style prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). It is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern across the set.
33 tools is excessive for a server nominally named Open Notify, and the count is inflated by redundant ask_pipeworx variants and six closely-related Polymarket tools. The broad data-gateway scope could justify a large catalog, but the set feels bloated and unfocused rather than deliberately scaled.
For the apparent Open Notify domain, only astros and iss_now fit, and core ISS functionality like pass predictions is missing. The wider data-lookup surface is extensive, but the inclusion of unrelated memory, subscription, npm-scanning, and llms.txt tools means no single domain gets coherent lifecycle coverage.