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). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it returns specific fields and scopes to caller's subscriptions, but doesn't disclose other details like pagination or performance.
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 concise sentences, front-loads purpose and includes actionable guidance. No wasted words.
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?
Describes return fields, and parameter is simple. Without output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand output, but lacks potential details like ordering or limits.
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%; the description doesn't explain the 'include_inactive' parameter beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies returned fields (id, type, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/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 suggests using it to review before adding more or to find an id to cancel, providing clear when-to-use 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, and the multiple Polymarket tools could be confused. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are distinct.
Tool names consistently use snake_case, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun. Some names are descriptive phrases (e.g., scan_competitor_ai_presence), while others are straightforward (e.g., keyword_overview). Overall readable but not highly consistent.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (SEO, finance, FDA, betting, memory). The tool count feels slightly excessive, yet each tool appears justified by its specific use case.
The tool set covers a wide range of business research needs: SEO, SEC filings, FDA data, betting analytics, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct social media or HR data), but the coverage is impressive for a general-purpose data server.