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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it lists active subscriptions by default and outlines the return fields, adding value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
Two concise sentences: first covers purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.
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 param, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is fully adequate. It explains what it does, what it returns, and when to use it.
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% with a single parameter (include_inactive) fully described. The description mentions 'active subscriptions' which implies default behavior but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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 and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing existing subscriptions.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides both usage context and practical application.
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.
The tool set has significant overlap among query and research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) and among entity/company tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). Despite detailed descriptions, an agent would struggle to select the correct tool without careful reading, especially for nuanced differences.
Tool naming is inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_, generate_, validate_, scan_, subscribe) while others are nouns (entity_profile, popular, trending, search, recent_alerts, recent_changes). The snake_case style is consistent, but the verb_noun pattern is not, making predictions of tool names difficult.
38 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (general query, research, Trakt, subscriptions, memory). The count is appropriate for the wide range of functionality, though some tools could be merged to reduce cognitive load.
The tool set covers a very wide range of tasks: querying, research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, Trakt operations, etc. For the Trakt domain, it has all essential operations (search, get, list, trending). The Pipeworx side has a comprehensive set for data access, grounding, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for subscriptions), but overall it is well-covered.