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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by listing return fields but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or rate limits. However, for a read-only list tool, this is adequate.
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, no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with the most important 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 0 required parameters and one optional boolean, the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields. No output schema exists, but the description lists the fields. Complete for this complexity level.
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 a clear description for the single parameter 'include_inactive'. The description does not re-iterate parameter details, but it's not needed since the schema already documents it well. 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 action (list) and resource (the caller's active subscriptions), and specifies the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings 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 advises when to use: 'before adding more' or to 'find an id to cancel', providing clear context and implying alternatives like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe'.
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 roles, but the ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research cluster overlaps heavily as question-answering and research entry points, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently being an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools are individually differentiated but numerous enough that selecting the right one requires careful reading.
The set is predominantly snake_case and mostly readable, with sensible prefixes like ask_, search_, polymarket_, and scan_. However, conventions mix verb-first names (remember, subscribe, validate_claim), noun-style names (categories, event, entity_profile), and adjective-noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), so the pattern is not fully uniform.
34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold where a server starts to feel heavy, and many could be consolidated (7+ prediction-market tools, 4+ overlapping ask/research tools, plus memory and subscription helpers). The breadth is somewhat justified by the Pipeworx data platform, but the surface is still overloaded for a single server.
For the broad data/research domain, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, tool discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle all have coherent coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI directly and a fairly thin Skiddle events side beyond search/detail/categories.