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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that it returns specific fields ('id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count') and is scoped to the caller's subscriptions. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.
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 concise: three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return fields and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value.
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 fully covers the return shape and usage purpose. Annotations cover safety, and the schema addresses parameters, making the description sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the include_inactive parameter already having a clear description. The main description adds little new about the parameter, merely implying 'active' by default, which aligns with the schema's 'default false' note. 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's function: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' This uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscriptions'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it is used for reviewing before adding or canceling subscriptions, which aligns with subscribe/unsubscribe tools.
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 explicit use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool but does not name alternative tools (e.g., subscribe/unsubscribe) directly, so it falls just 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.
The tool set is a chaotic mix of Spotify music tools and an extensive Pipeworx data querying system, with no clear separation. Tools like 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded', and 'deep_research' have overlapping querying purposes, while unrelated tools from prediction markets and company research further muddy the boundaries. An agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: Spotify tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'get_album', 'search'), while Pipeworx tools use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research'). Additionally, some tools have vague names like 'process' or 'run' that could apply to anything. The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the set feel disjointed.
With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Spotify' implies a focused music service. The majority of tools are unrelated to Spotify (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket bets, dependency scanning), making the tool count feel inflated and inappropriate for the stated domain. A more focused set would be far more coherent.
If this is a Spotify server, it is severely incomplete: it lacks playlist management, user actions, and recommendation features beyond top tracks. The inclusion of dozens of unrelated tools (financial data, prediction markets, package analysis) suggests the server has no clear purpose, leaving it neither complete for Spotify nor for any other single domain.