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, etc. The description adds value by listing specific return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which annotations do not cover.
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 focused sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No superfluous information.
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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and when to use it, complemented by strong annotations.
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 covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'include_inactive'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' with the resource 'the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates return fields, distinguishing 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?
Explicitly guides when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' or 'find an id to cancel', implying alternatives and appropriate contexts.
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 have overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence; discover_tools vs suggest_questions; validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket tools). The wide mix of unrelated domains (RubyGems, Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions) makes it hard for an agent to know which tool to pick.
All tools use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Names include bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback), noun-first composites (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and brand names (ask_pipeworx). The 'pipeworx_' prefix appears on only a few tools, adding inconsistency.
36 tools is excessive for a server named Rubygems, especially since only 5 tools (search_gems, get_gem, get_versions, get_dependencies, get_reverse_dependencies) actually relate to RubyGems. The rest cover unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The RubyGems cluster is arguably complete for basic lookups (search, metadata, versions, dependencies, reverse dependencies), but it is buried among 31 unrelated tools that have no coherent domain. The server fails to fully cover either RubyGems (no way to browse all gems, no yanked versions, no gem download/content) or any other single purpose, leaving the surface incomplete and inconsistent.