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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns specific fields and the scope is 'the caller's active subscriptions.' It does not contradict annotations and provides moderate additional context, but not extensive behavioral details (e.g., rate limits).
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: the first states purpose and return fields, the second gives usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value with 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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage. It lacks mention of potential limitations (e.g., pagination or max results) but is otherwise complete for the context. No output schema increases the need for return field description, which is provided.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'active subscriptions' implicitly referencing the default behavior, but does not add new information about the include_inactive parameter beyond what the schema provides. No contradiction or enhancement.
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 explicitly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates return fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on reading existing subscriptions, which is a unique purpose among siblings.
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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear, making it score a 4.
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 occupy nearly identical roles (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly the same router as ask_pipeworx. Company-data tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim) and the Polymarket family also overlap heavily, making selection error-prone despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names are consistently lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (search_notices, get_notice, find_a_tender_recent, validate_claim). Even longer names like polymarket_edge_tracker and ask_pipeworx_grounded follow a predictable style with no camelCase or mixed conventions.
36 tools is already excessive for a focused server, and the 'Uk Contracts' name covers only five of them (search_notices, recent_notices, get_notice, find_a_tender_recent, find_a_tender_notice). The remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/AI-marketing utilities, so the count badly mismatches the apparent scope.
For UK public procurement, the five relevant tools provide search, recent listing, and full-detail retrieval for both Contracts Finder and Find a Tender Service, covering the core workflows well. Minor gaps include no tender-specific alert/subscription support and no server-side keyword search for the high-value FTS feed.