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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by scoping to the caller's subscriptions and listing the exact returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It does not mention pagination or ordering, which are possible minor gaps for a list tool, but the provided information is still valuable.
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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and return fields, the second provides usage context. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.
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, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The listing of return fields compensates for the absence of an output schema, making the tool fully understandable.
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 fully documents the sole parameter 'include_inactive' with a clear description (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, and none is needed since the schema already explains the behavior. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high 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' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on the review/listing use case. The enumerating of return fields further clarifies the tool's purpose.
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 provides usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to adding (subscribe) or removing (unsubscribe) subscriptions, making the workflow context 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.
Multiple tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in grounding. generate_users and generate_by_gender overlap, as do ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence and the several polymarket_* tools that all target edge detection and arbitrage. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (generate_users, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are nouns (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_changes), and some are compound noun phrases (ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no predictable verb_noun structure across the set.
33 tools is well above the 'too many' threshold, and the set includes many meta-tools, memory helpers, and niche prediction-market tools. While the broad domain might justify some diversity, the count feels bloated and dilutes the server's focus, especially given the server name suggests only random user generation.
For the apparent core domain (data lookups, research, prediction market analysis, subscriptions), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers direct queries, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim verification, discovery, trends, memory, and subscription management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct CRUD for user-generated profiles beyond creation), but overall the feature set feels well covered.