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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns active subscriptions by default, lists the response fields, and is scoped to the caller. No contradiction.
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: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It also lists return fields, compensating for the lack of an output schema.
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% for the only parameter (include_inactive) and the schema description fully explains it. The description does not add extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe which perform mutations.
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 concrete usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies it should be used before subscribe/unsubscribe, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.
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 have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. While each has distinct nuances, they could be confused by an agent.
Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is inconsistent (e.g., bet_research vs. polymarket_arbitrage vs. ai_visibility_check). There is no strong verb_noun pattern across the set.
34 tools is high given the server's stated purpose ('spacenews'). Only a few tools directly relate to space news; the bulk are general-purpose Pipeworx utilities, making the scope too broad.
For a space news server, the tool surface is incomplete: only get_articles, get_blogs, and search_articles are relevant. Missing tools for article details, source filtering, or categories. The extensive general tools don't make up for this gap.