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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that subscriptions are scoped to the caller and that active subscriptions are returned by default, with an option to include cancelled ones. It also lists the exact return fields, which goes beyond the annotation layer.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and output, and the second sentence adds practical usage context. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states scope (caller's subscriptions), default behavior (active only), the include_inactive option, the exact return fields, and when to use it. The annotations cover safety traits, so no key information is missing.
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?
There is only one parameter, include_inactive, and its schema description fully covers its semantics ('Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false)'). The main description adds no further parameter-level detail. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 tool 'List the caller's active subscriptions', identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on reviewing existing subscriptions, and it enumerates the return fields, making its 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to actions like subscribing or cancelling, effectively naming the alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) without needing to reference them directly.
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.
Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) creates ambiguity as they serve overlapping needs with slight variations. Additionally, the transport tools (get_connections, get_stationboard, search_stations) are clearly distinct from the rest, but the overall set mixes domains, making it harder for an agent to know which tool to pick.
All tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent pattern: some start with verbs (get_, list_, search_, remember, forget), some with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts), and others with adjectives (ai_visibility_check, deep_research). This inconsistency, while not chaotic, makes the set less predictable.
The server name 'swisstransport' implies a narrow Swiss transport focus, but with 34 tools, only 3 are transport-related. The count is vastly inappropriate for the suggested purpose. Even considering the actual broad domain (data query, prediction markets, memory), 34 tools is on the high side and likely overwhelming for any single server.
Inferring the domain from the tool descriptions, the set covers a wide range of capabilities: data query (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity comparison (compare_entities), prediction markets (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall), subscriptions, and more. There are few obvious gaps given the scope; for example, broader financial data is accessible through ask_pipeworx. The transport subset is minimal but present.