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 read-only/idempotent, and the description adds that it returns active subscriptions by default with specific fields, and that ids can be used for cancellation. No 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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose and usage front-loaded.
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 single-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, return fields, default behavior, and typical use case. No output schema is present but field list compensates.
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 include_inactive with a description, so baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add extra parameter semantics beyond saying 'active subscriptions', which aligns with the schema default.
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' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates return fields. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe and from other query tools.
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?
It explicitly advises using this tool 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', giving concrete scenarios. It doesn't name alternatives but the guidance 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 tool set includes multiple pairs of nearly identical tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage) that overlap heavily in purpose. Many tools also combine unrelated functions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right one without confusion.
Tool names follow no discernible pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, get_bill), and even lengthy descriptive names (scan_competitor_ai_presence) are mixed. The naming style is chaotic and inconsistent across the set.
With 30 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on OpenStates (state legislatures). Only a few tools (search_bills, get_bill, etc.) relate to the server's name, while the rest are tangentially related to data lookups, betting, or AI visibility, making the set bloated.
The server's core domain (state legislative data) is severely underserved: only about 5 tools cover bills and legislators, lacking basic CRUD operations like create, update, or delete. Many obvious operations (e.g., searching bills by subject, tracking votes) are missing, while unrelated tools dominate.