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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.) and the default behavior of listing only active subscriptions with an optional include_inactive parameter. No contradictions with annotations.
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 states the action, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words.
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, the description lists the key return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and explains when to use the tool. For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, this is complete and 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?
The input schema has one parameter (include_inactive) with full description coverage (100%). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the return fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameter adequately.
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 states 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' It clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (subscriptions), and scope (caller's active). Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like subscribe or unsubscribe, the purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 advises using this tool to 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Sibling tools exist (e.g., subscribe, unsubscribe), but the guidance is implicit.
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.