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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying default active-only filtering.
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 purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys key 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 good annotations and complete schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, return fields, and usage context. No output schema exists, but return fields are listed in the description.
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 does not add extra information about the include_inactive parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 action (List), the resource (the caller's subscriptions), and the scope (active). It also distinguishes 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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.
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 overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer queries with subtly different guarantees. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) also has fuzzy boundaries. Despite detailed descriptions, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: there are verb_noun names (discover_tools, resolve_entity), noun-based names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and odd constructions like send_that_email_analyze. No clear pattern dominates, making it hard to predict tool names.
32 tools is heavy for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the server's apparent email-sending purpose. The count feels bloated and the scope mismatched, though it is not extreme enough for a 1.
Given the server name 'Send That Email', the tool surface is severely incomplete: there is only an email analysis tool and no actual sending, drafting, or mailbox management. The bulk of the tools address data lookup and research, leaving the core email workflow entirely unimplemented.