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). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by scoping to the caller's subscriptions, outlining the returned fields, and clarifying the default behavior of listing active subscriptions only. This goes beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.
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 fluff: it leads with the action and object, lists return fields, and then gives targeted usage context. Every sentence contributes useful 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one well-documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, return format, and practical use. The include_inactive parameter is already explained in the schema, so no further detail is needed here.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter include_inactive has a full description in the schema. The tool description does not discuss this parameter, but it reinforces the default 'active' scope. Since the schema already documents the parameter, a 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List the caller's active subscriptions') and specifies the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe while providing concrete scope.
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?
It states explicit use cases: review monitoring before adding more subscriptions, and find an id to cancel. It doesn't name alternative tools like subscribe/unsubscribe directly, but the context clearly implies these actions, giving practical guidance without exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct jobs, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are overlapping query/research entry points—and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Similarly, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap by composition. The descriptions are detailed enough to choose correctly with care, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which keeps the surface readable, but the naming conventions are mixed: some are imperative verbs (get_tle, list_recent, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and several use domain prefixes without a clear verb (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). This is still discoverable naming, but it does not follow a consistent verb_noun pattern.
34 tools is well beyond the well-scoped range, and the vast majority belong to a broad Pipeworx research/prediction-market platform rather than the server's apparent 'tle' satellite theme. Only get_tle, list_recent, and search_satellites directly match the server name. It feels like several tool surfaces aggregated into one server rather than one coherent product.
For the satellite TLE theme, NORAD lookup, name search, and recent-catalog listing are covered, but orbit propagation, pass prediction, and historical TLE data are missing. For the broader data-research surface, coverage is rich—query, grounded answers, entity resolution, comparison, validation, subscriptions, and memory are all present—so agents have workable paths for most tasks, but the server's mixed scope creates obvious thematic gaps.