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 declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields and default behavior (active subscriptions only), providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is two sentences, directly states purpose and usage, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and a usage scenario. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly note that it only returns the caller's subscriptions.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'include_inactive' with a clear description. The description only implies the default behavior but adds no additional meaning 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 clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by indicating its use for reviewing existing subscriptions.
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 offers explicit guidance to use this tool for reviewing subscriptions before adding more or to find an ID to cancel. It implies when not to use it (not for creating or canceling) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates or heavily overlapping: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover grounded-answer territory. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) also has fuzzy boundaries that would require careful reading to differentiate.
Naming mixes several conventions: verb_noun (query_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, disaster_declarations, deep_research), and branded prefixes (pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Some tools use scan_, some ask_, some list_, with no single predictable pattern across the set.
At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold and carries a lot of surface area. The server is named Openfema, yet only about three tools actually relate to FEMA data, making the count feel inflated relative to the stated name and purpose.
For its actual broad domain—a general structured-data research gateway—the surface is quite comprehensive: discovery, single lookups, grounded verification, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct OpenFEMA dataset metadata beyond list_datasets, and some tools require accounts/paywalls), but agents can generally accomplish the intended workflows.