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=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which is especially useful given there is no output schema. It does not add context about auth or rate limits, but the tool is simple and the annotations are strong.
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: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the most critical 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The only missing detail is the include_inactive parameter, but that is fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for its single optional parameter (include_inactive) with a clear description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema. However, since the schema already fully explains the parameter, 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which perform mutating operations. It also specifies the scope ('active subscriptions') and names the returned fields, making the purpose 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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear guidance relative to the sibling subscribe and unsubscribe tools, and implies the alternatives without ambiguity.
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 StackExchange tools are distinct, but the dominating data-lookup cluster is highly ambiguous: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route into the same underlying tool catalog. The polymorpharket tools also overlap heavily, making selection between bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and fill-risk checks genuinely hard.
The names are all snake_case but otherwise follow no consistent pattern: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, stack_get_user), composite domain names (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and generic verbs (resolve_entity, validate_claim, search_within). The StackExchange subset itself is split between stack_get_user/stack_tags and search_questions/get_answers.
36 tools is already in the 'too many' range for one server, and the mismatch with the server name is severe: only 5 of 36 tools relate to StackExchange. The rest form a broad Pipeworx/prediction-market data platform that would itself be oversized for a focused purpose.
For a StackExchange-focused server, the surface has core read operations but lacks question-detail-by-ID, comments, related questions, or any write/community actions, and the 31 unrelated tools do not fill that gap. For the broader apparent Pipeworx platform coverage is broad, but the set has no single coherent domain against which completeness can be meaningfully judged.