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 the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context by specifying that only active subscriptions are listed by default and detailing the return fields, which goes beyond the annotation hints. It does not explain every edge case, but given the strong annotation coverage, a 4 is appropriate.
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 at two sentences, with the first stating the action and return fields and the second giving usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 purpose, return fields, and usage context. Combined with the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough 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?
The schema fully documents the only parameter (include_inactive) with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates the exact returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.
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: reviewing current monitoring before adding more subscriptions and finding an id to cancel. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear, so it earns a 4 rather than 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research; multiple Polymarket tools). The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are generic and could be confused with each other. Overall, there is significant ambiguity in tool selection.
Most tool names use snake_case, but there is no strong verb_noun pattern. Some are simple nouns (languages, search) while others are verbs (forget, recall). The naming is readable but not highly consistent.
With 34 tools, the set is far too large for a Tatoeba server. Only 4 tools (search, sentence, translations, languages) are actually related to Tatoeba; the rest cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, AI visibility). This is an extreme mismatch.
For the Tatoeba domain, the 4 tools cover basic functionality but lack operations like adding or editing sentences. The overwhelming presence of irrelevant tools makes the surface feel incomplete and disjointed for the server's stated purpose.