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 and destructiveHint false. The description adds the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which is valuable since there is no output schema. 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?
The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, listing return fields, and giving usage guidance. No fluff or redundant content.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the action, return fields, and usage guidance. It could mention potential absence of results or ordering, but the essential context is present.
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 covers 100% of the parameter 'include_inactive' with a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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' with a clear verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the caller's own active subscriptions and mentions use cases related to 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?
The description explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' providing clear context for when to use it relative to subscribing and unsubscribing.
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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly described as identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle natural-language data queries, while six polymarket_* tools cover prediction-market analysis with blurry boundaries. The four legitimate Pokemon tools are drowned out by dozens of unrelated Pipeworx utilities, making tool selection confusing.
Tool names mix verb_noun (get_pokemon, ask_pipeworx), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe) with no consistent pattern. Even the Pipeworx-related tools alternate between ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and descriptive names, so the naming is a hodgepodge rather than a predictable system.
At 35 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a coherent toolkit. The 'pokemon' server name implies a small, domain-specific set, yet 31 of the tools are unrelated Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, and memory utilities, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
For a Pokemon domain, the surface is skeletal: only get_pokemon, get_ability, get_type, and get_evolution_chain exist, with no moves, items, locations, or search/list capabilities. The extensive Pipeworx tools clearly belong to a different server altogether, creating a massive coherence gap for the stated 'pokemon' purpose.