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 and idempotentHint. The description adds value by listing the returned fields and mentioning the include_inactive parameter, which annotations do not cover.
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: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary 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?
The description covers purpose, return fields, usage context, and the optional parameter. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool these are minor omissions.
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%, so the description does not need to add much. It mentions the parameter implicitly but does not expand beyond the schema definition.
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 and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, etc.). It distinguishes itself 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?
The description explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context and suggests 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants and various Polymarket tools that serve similar functions. The lack of clear boundaries between data retrieval tools makes it difficult for an agent to choose the right one.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: Slack tools use a 'slack_' prefix, while Pipeworx tools use a mix of verbs (ask_, validate_, resolve_) and nouns (entity_profile, bet_research). No uniform convention is applied across the set.
With 36 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a comprehensive data platform. However, the inclusion of only 5 Slack tools in a server named 'Slack_connect' indicates a mismatch between tool count and intended purpose.
For a Slack integration, the tool surface is severely incomplete—missing core operations like creating channels, archiving, reactions, or message threading. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but unrelated to the server's stated purpose.