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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying return fields and default filtering (active only), which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and usage. Every word adds value.
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 (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers return fields and usage. Could mention if there is pagination or ordering, but not necessary for this case.
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 100% of the single parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own description, as it merely implies the default behavior without additional insight.
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 resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and the return fields are specified. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe'.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is given: review before adding more subscriptions or find an id to cancel. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though alternative tools are not named.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap (one is grounded), and bet_research/validate_claim/compare_entities/entity_profile all query Pipeworx data with different intents, which could cause confusion.
Names are consistently lower_snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_podcasts, get_podcast, list_subscriptions). A few compound names like pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_arbitrage deviate slightly but remain readable.
30 tools is excessive for a server named 'Podcastindex'. It aggregates unrelated domains (podcasts, Pipeworx queries, Polymarket, memory, etc.), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused tool set.
For podcasts, the tool set covers search, metadata, episodes, and trending but lacks subscription management. For the broader Pipeworx domain, ask_pipeworx and discover_tools provide wide access, but specific gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing query). Overall, the surface is broad but uneven.