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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the return fields and that it lists active subscriptions by default, which aligns with and enriches the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then return fields, then usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps are evident.
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 input schema provides a complete description for 'include_inactive'. The tool description does not add further meaning to this parameter, so it meets the baseline for 100% 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 clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and lists the return fields. This specific verb+resource differentiates it 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?
The description explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear, actionable guidance.
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.
Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer factual questions through similar routing; the polymarket_* tools and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes also cover the same ground. The server is named Pubchem but most tools are unrelated, adding another layer of confusion.
All tool names are snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun (search_by_name, get_compound, create_subscription, etc.). Minor deviations exist like entity_profile and recent_alerts being noun-first, and the pipeworx_*/polymarket_* prefixes make the set feel more like multiple products than one coherent API.
35 tools is a large surface, and only 4 (search_by_name, get_compound, get_classification, get_synonyms) actually belong to PubChem. The other 31 tools form a broad Pipeworx/prediction-market toolkit that seems unrelated to the server's stated name and purpose.
For a PubChem server the coverage is minimal: basic name->CID resolution, compound properties, classification, and synonyms, but no formula search, bioassay, spectra, or list/search by other identifiers. The Pipeworx tools are extensive for general data querying but require accounts/keys for full use, so anonymous agents hit incomplete workflow dead ends.