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 as safe. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (id, type, params, timestamps, fire_count) and clarifies that it lists active subscriptions by default, which is not directly in the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loading the core purpose and returning fields. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 single parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the explanatory burden.
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 action ('List'), the resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and specifies the return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which perform different operations.
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 ('review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'), which signals when to use this tool. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the context strongly implies differentiation from subscribe/unsubscribe.
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 overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ only in mode; several Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) target related opportunities; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. The meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) could also be confused for one another.
All names are lowercase snake_case, which is consistent, but patterns vary: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), others are noun (news, crypto_prices, stock_metadata), and several use brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.
35 tools is too many for a coherent, well-scoped server. The set bundles a financial data API (Tiingo) with a generic data router (ask_pipeworx), prediction-market tools, memory utilities, subscription management, and npm checks — many unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making it feel bloated.
For a Tiingo server, core data coverage is limited to stock prices, stock metadata, crypto prices, and news — missing real-time quotes, fundamentals, forex, technical indicators, and other typical Tiingo endpoints. Conversely, the general Pipeworx platform has broad query/research/subscription coverage but that domain doesn't align with the server name, leaving significant functional gaps.