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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds return field details and the concept of 'active' subscriptions, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or limitations.
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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists the expected fields, which is helpful. It does not mention pagination or edge cases, but for a simple list tool with annotations this is mostly sufficient.
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 covers the single parameter (include_inactive) at 100% with a clear description. The tool description mentions it implicitly by discussing 'active subscriptions', but does not exceed the schema's provided semantics, so a 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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, etc.). It ties to sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by explaining when to use it, 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 says to use it before adding more subscriptions or to find an id to cancel, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for differentiation from siblings.
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.
There are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions through the same 5,743-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket opportunity tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) also have fuzzy boundaries despite detailed descriptions.
There is no consistent naming pattern across the set: some tools are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), some are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and some are compound/multi-word oddities (temperature_random_generate, ai_visibility_check). Small internal clusters like remember/recall/forget and subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions show mini-consistency, but the overall convention is mixed and unpredictable.
With 32 tools, the server is over-stuffed, and many of them serve the same broad Pipeworx data/research purpose while one unrelated temperature tool rides along. The count is above the 25-tool threshold where a set starts to feel unwieldy, and several tools could be merged or dropped without losing real capability.
Assuming the intended scope is the Pipeworx data/agent platform implied by 31 of the 32 tools, coverage is strong: lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, entity resolution, claim validation, tool discovery, memory, subscription lifecycle, prediction-market analysis, execution risk, and feedback are all represented. The temperature_random_generate tool is a domain misfit rather than a completeness gap, and there are few obvious missing operations for the stated workflows.