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=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context that the tool scopes results to the caller ('caller's active subscriptions') and lists the return fields, which annotations don't provide. It doesn't mention default filtering to active only, but that's partially addressed by the schema parameter.
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: first states the purpose and returned fields, second gives usage guidance. No fluff, essential information only, and the most important facts are front-loaded.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return fields, and typical usage scenarios. It is complete for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what to expect.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter include_inactive, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema covers params fully.
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 tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, and enumerates the exact fields returned. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes 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 gives explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. This implies when to use it relative to subscribe/unsubscribe, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. Still, the context is clear and actionable.
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.
Each tool has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions, making them easily distinguishable. Overlaps are minimal; for instance, Pipeworx and Polymarket tools have distinct roles within their domains.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but a few single-word names (e.g., forget, recall) deviate slightly, causing minor inconsistency.
The server is named 'recipes' but contains only 4 recipe-related tools out of 34. The majority cover unrelated domains like finance, betting, and data queries, making the scope overly broad and misaligned with the server name.
For the 'recipes' domain, essential CRUD operations and features like meal planning are missing. While the general tool set is extensive, it lacks critical recipe-related functionality, leaving significant gaps for the intended purpose.