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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by confirming it returns only active subscriptions by default, specifying return fields, and implying no side effects. No contradictions.
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 states purpose and return fields; the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficiently structured.
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 main aspects: purpose, return fields, default behavior, and usage. It could mention potential pagination or limits, but given the low complexity, it is adequately complete.
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 already fully describes the only parameter 'include_inactive' with a description. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'subscriptions', and the scope 'caller's active'. It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the list operation vs. subscribe/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 explicitly advises using this tool to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel. This directly guides the agent on appropriate contexts, aligning with sibling tools for subscription management.
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.
Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx plus the many polymarket_* tools have adjacent intents that are easy to confuse. scan_competitor_ai_presence also directly wraps ai_visibility_check, so an agent can easily select the wrong tool for the same task.
Names are consistently snake_case, but the convention is mixed: some are verb-first (query_subgraph, introspect_schema, validate_claim), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). The repeated prefixes help, but there is no single predictable naming pattern across the set.
With 33 tools, this exceeds a reasonable single-server footprint, and the scope sprawls across data routing, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm dependencies, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Many tools feel like separate mini-applications rather than one coherent toolkit for The Graph.
The Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market side is well covered with lookup, grounded answers, research, comparison, profiles, claims, subscriptions, and memory. However, the server's apparent namesake, The Graph, is thin: only query_subgraph and introspect_schema exist, with no subgraph discovery, status, or management tools.