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 detailing the return fields and the effect of the include_inactive parameter, which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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. Every sentence serves a clear function.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values thoroughly.
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 the include_inactive parameter already described. The description does not add meaningful extra information beyond the schema; 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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields (id, type, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource combination, distinct from sibling tools 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?
The description explicitly advises use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives.
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.
ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, making them practically indistinguishable, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with one extra verification step. The five polymarket_* tools also share overlapping 'find/validate edge' territory, and scan_competitor_ai_presence is a direct wrapper over ai_visibility_check, so an agent must read carefully to pick correctly.
Prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, seo_backlinks_*, pipeworx_*) provide some predictability, and several tools follow verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, conventions mix single verbs (remember, forget, recall), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and seo_referring_domains breaks the seo_backlinks_* family pattern, so the overall scheme is readable but inconsistent.
36 tools is over the 25+ 'too many' threshold even for a broad platform, and the mismatch is far worse given the server is named 'Seo Backlinks' — only 5 of 36 tools actually serve that purpose. The other 31 tools (Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions) belong to a different scope entirely, making the set feel bloated and mislabeled.
The five genuine backlink tools cover a single-domain audit well (summary, list, anchors, referring domains, history), but they lack standard SEO workflows like multi-domain or competitor backlink comparison, and there is no tool connecting backlink data to the AI-visibility audit tools. The surrounding Pipeworx surface is extensive, but it belongs to a different domain than the server's stated purpose.