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 non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying default behavior (only active subscriptions) and the optional include_inactive parameter, plus return fields. 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?
Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and return fields; second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 boolean, no output schema), the description fully covers functionality, return fields, and use case. No gaps.
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 one optional boolean parameter. The description mentions 'active' which relates to the parameter context but does not add explicit semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings 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?
Explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear context for use cases and implies when to use vs subscribe/unsubscribe, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use.
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 blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same data, and five polymarket_* tools overlap on edge detection and arbitrage. Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries are subtle and the server name 'Uk Food Hygiene' adds a layer of confusion.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but conventions vary widely: brand-style names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), verb_noun pairs (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), and bare verbs (recall, forget). It is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern.
A server named 'Uk Food Hygiene' has 33 tools, of which only two (uk_food_hygiene_search, uk_food_hygiene_details) relate to food hygiene. The rest are a grab-bag of Pipeworx platform utilities, prediction-market tools, memory helpers, and subscription features — an extreme mismatch between count and stated scope.
The two food hygiene tools cover search and detail lookup, which handles the core use case, but the broader tool surface has notable gaps: citation URIs are returned but no fetch/read tool exists, and the unrelated domains (prediction markets, company research, AI visibility) are deep in some places and absent in others. The overall surface feels like an incoherent collection rather than a complete domain toolkit.