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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying that results are scoped to the caller and listing the return fields, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.
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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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, the description covers the scope (caller's subscriptions), the complete set of return fields, and typical use cases (review, cancel). No output schema exists, but the description adequately compensates with field enumeration.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter include_inactive, which is fully described in the schema. The description doesn't add extra parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (list) and resource (subscriptions), and enumerates the exact returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe, which perform different actions.
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 clear usage scenarios: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies when to use it relative to subscribe/unsubscribe, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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.
Multiple tools have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is explicitly 'exactly' the stable version), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence is a single-vs-batch duplicate. The six polymarket_* tools are differentiated by long descriptions, but their overlapping concerns (edges, arbitrage, fill risk, spread) would frequently misroute an agent, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions also compete.
Names follow two coexisting conventions: verb_noun for actions (get_data, resolve_entity, validate_claim) and domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Within each family the pattern is consistent, but mixing the two styles across the set, plus outliers like generate_llms_txt and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), makes the overall scheme feel uneven though still readable.
34 tools is well past the 'heavy' threshold and the count is not justified by the server's stated identity: a server named 'Statec Lu' (Luxembourg statistics) contains only 3 STATEC tools buried among general data-platform, prediction-market, AI-visibility, npm-scanning, and memory utilities. The sprawling, multi-domain surface would be more coherent split into separate servers.
The STATEC subset is complete (list_dataflows → dataflow_structure → get_data forms a full browse/fetch lifecycle), and the broader research surface covers entity resolution, grounded answers, comparison, claim verification, and subscription/alert/memory management. However, the overall domain is incoherent—a STATEC server missing nothing for statistics but carrying 31 unrelated tools—and there are notable gaps such as no tool to directly fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI and no execution side for the extensive Polymarket analysis tools.