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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safe read behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and the default filtering to active subscriptions, which gives the agent concrete expectations beyond annotation hints.
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 and immediately followed by return fields and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. Annotations handle safety traits, and sibling tools (subscribe/unsubscribe) provide surrounding context. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The input schema covers the sole parameter (include_inactive) with 100% clarity, so the description doesn't need to explain it. The phrase 'active subscriptions' does implicitly align with the default false of include_inactive, but this is marginal added value over 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 the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscriptions') with an explicit scope ('caller's active'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by being the listing counterpart.
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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to invoke it relative to subscribe/unsubscribe actions. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates or easily confused: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all target opportunity discovery. While many tools are distinct, the boundaries between these clusters are unclear enough to cause misselection.
The vast majority of tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case convention with descriptive noun/verb patterns (e.g., polymarket_edges, entity_profile, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations like seo_domain_ranked_keywords and ask_pipeworx_beta are slightly off-pattern, but the overall style is predictable.
32 tools is above the threshold where a set starts to feel bloated, especially for a server named "Seo Competitors". The count includes many unrelated subsystems—Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, and generic data routing—making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused SEO competitor toolkit.
For a server claiming to support SEO competitor analysis, the surface is incomplete: it offers a keyword-ranking tool and AI visibility checks, but lacks standard competitor SEO capabilities like backlink analysis, rank tracking over time, content-gap analysis, or site audits. The broader data/query tooling is extensive, but it doesn't fill the gaps in the advertised domain.