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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds what fields are returned and the effect of the optional parameter. No contradiction.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action and key info. No fluff.
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?
With no output schema, description lists return fields. Parameter optional and documented in schema. Annotations cover safety. Complete for a simple list tool.
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% with parameter description. Description does not add meaning beyond schema, but schema fully documents the parameter. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies return fields. Distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by implying it's for review or finding IDs.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides clear context for when to use, though no explicit exclusions.
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 occupy the same natural-language lookup niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, and the beta tool is currently described as identical to the stable router. Prediction-market edge detection also fans out across bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk, so an agent can easily select the wrong one.
Most names follow a predictable snake_case action-first pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, subscribe, unsubscribe) with helpful domain prefixes for polymarket_*, realestate_*, and pipeworx_*. Minor deviations exist—entity_profile is noun-first, ask_pipeworx lacks an underscore, and remember/forget/recall are bare verbs—but they do not create real confusion.
33 tools is well above the coherence sweet spot and the rubric's 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by auxiliary platform utilities (feedback, trending, memory, subscriptions, llms.txt generation, npm scanning) that are unrelated to the Realestate name and make the tool surface feel like a full platform rather than a focused MCP server.
For a server named Realestate, the surface is only minimally complete: realestate_municipalities and realestate_transactions cover Japanese transaction lookups, but there are no tools for property listings, property details, pricing estimates, or typical real-estate workflows. Even viewed as a broad data platform, the set is read-heavy with no create/update/delete operations beyond memories and subscriptions, leaving significant workflow gaps.