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 indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations by listing the exact fields returned and clarifying the default scope ('active subscriptions'), which is useful context for the agent.
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?
The description is two sentences, first stating purpose and return fields, second giving usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, default behavior, and practical use cases. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional information.
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 single optional parameter `include_inactive`, so the schema fully describes it. The description reinforces the concept of active vs. inactive by mentioning 'active subscriptions', but adds no new parameter-specific information, so a baseline score 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 the action ('List'), the resource ('subscriptions'), and the scope ('the caller's active'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'active' and 'caller's', and lists the return fields, making it unambiguous.
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 says when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly references the alternative actions (adding subscriptions or cancelling), providing clear usage context.
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 clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (the beta currently matches stable exactly), and the Polymarket tools all circle around edge/arbitrage detection with fuzzy boundaries. The Spain tender tools and utility tools are distinct, but the overlapping clusters are enough to cause misselection.
Names are uniformly snake_case and some families share clear prefixes (es_tender_*, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). However, conventions are mixed: verb-led names like compare_entities and subscribe sit alongside noun phrases like entity_profile and bet_research, so there is no consistent verb_noun pattern.
34 tools is already in the heavy range, but the bigger problem is scope: a server named 'Spain Tenders' ships 34 tools, only 3 of which are actually Spanish-procurement tools. The rest are a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket/utility toolkit, making the count inappropriate for the declared purpose.
The three es_tender_* tools cover the core discovery workflows: keyword search, recent notices, and status filtering with budgets, deadlines, and URLs. Notable gaps remain, though: no tender detail-by-id tool, no tender-specific subscription/alerting, and no explicit region, CPV, or date-range filters.