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 indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying return fields and default behavior (only active subscriptions), which aligns with annotations. No contradictions.
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 main purpose, and every sentence is informative without waste.
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?
The description covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. It lacks mention of pagination or limits, but given the simple nature of a list operation, it is reasonably complete.
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 description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter. 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'the caller's active subscriptions', and lists the return fields. 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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'), but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.
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 are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap), and the massive mix of unrelated domains (Polymarket betting, general data lookup, AI visibility) alongside UK Parliament tools makes selection confusing. An agent would struggle to know whether to use ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, or ask_pipeworx_grounded, or which of the five polymarket tools fits.
Most tools use snake_case with readable names, but the action placement varies (verb_noun like get_bill vs noun_verb like bet_research, entity_profile), and there are compound names like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence. The style is mostly consistent but the verb_noun pattern is not uniform across the set.
38 tools is heavy, and the overwhelming majority are unrelated to the server's stated UK Parliament purpose. Only 7 tools (get_bill, search_bills, bill_stages, get_member, search_members, search_hansard, recent_divisions) have anything to do with Parliament, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent scope.
The Parliament-specific surface is thin: basic bill/member/Hansard lookups exist, but there are no tools for specific divisions/votes, committees, publications, or detailed procedural information. The vast non-Parliament tooling is irrelevant, creating a dead end for any real Parliament research beyond the basics.