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=true and destructiveHint=false, so description adds value by listing output fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). No contradictions. Could mention pagination, but not required for simple list.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and output fields, second gives usage guidance. No wasted 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what agents need: what it returns, when to use it. No gaps.
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). Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema, which is adequate. Baseline of 3 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?
Clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource. Differentiated from siblings 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by implying it's for reviewing, not modifying.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Tells when to use and implies alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe).
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.
Tools are mostly distinct in purpose but some overlaps exist, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several polymarket analysis tools. Detailed descriptions help, but the sheer variety and similar intent of some tools could confuse agents.
Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), single words (forecast), action_noun (bet_research), prefixes (polymarket_, pipeworx_), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No uniform pattern.
33 tools is too many for a server named 'Pirate Weather' that only has two weather-specific tools. The tool count feels inflated with many meta-tools and unrelated domains, exceeding a coherent scope.
Coverage is incomplete for the implied weather focus (only two tools). Other domains like prediction markets are better covered, but overall the surface is a mix of partial offerings with clear gaps (e.g., no update/delete for subscriptions).