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 mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by disclosing that it returns only active subscriptions by default and listing the specific return fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. The description does not contradict the 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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and immediately followed by return field details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of annotation information.
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 simple tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what is returned, the default scope (active only), and when to use it. The lack of pagination details is acceptable for a straightforward read-only list tool, and the annotations cover safety.
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 does not need to add parameter semantics. It provides no extra explanation of the parameter, but the schema already covers its meaning and default, meeting the baseline for schema-description coverage.
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, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'subscriptions'. It also enumerates the exact fields returned, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly addresses the decision points for using list_subscriptions versus subscribe or unsubscribe, providing clear contextual guidance.
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, especially the multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants and several Polymarket utilities. The server mixes a few timezone tools with a large collection of unrelated data lookup and analysis tools, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.
While all tool names use snake_case, the verbs are highly inconsistent (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'convert_time', 'discover_tools', 'validate_claim'). There is no clear pattern or predictable naming convention across the set.
The server name 'timezone' suggests a narrow domain, but it contains 35 tools, the vast majority of which are unrelated to timezones. This is far too many for the implied scope, and the server seems to be a dumping ground for various services.
For a timezone server, only 4 tools (convert_time, get_time_by_ip, get_time_by_timezone, list_timezones) are relevant. Critical timezone functionality like time zone conversions with arbitrary offsets, DST handling, or time zone by coordinates is missing. The remaining tools are completely unrelated to the server's stated purpose.