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). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds value by listing returned fields (id, type, etc.) and confirming read-only behavior.
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 informative sentences with zero fluff, front-loaded action and returned fields, then usage guidance. Every sentence 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?
Despite no output schema, the description enumerates return fields. For a simple list tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete and leaves no ambiguity.
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 clear description for include_inactive. The tool description reinforces that the parameter controls inclusion of cancelled subscriptions, but doesn't significantly enhance 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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifying the verb (list), resource (subscriptions), and scope (caller's active). This distinguishes it from sibling tools 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?
Explicitly advises when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context and 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 overlap in purpose, especially the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all answer factual questions but differ in grounding/depth. The beta version is explicitly identical to the stable one currently, creating confusion. The Polymarket analysis tools also have overlapping scopes, though their descriptions help differentiate them. Overall, most tools have distinct roles but the heavy overlap in the query router cluster makes misselection a real risk.
Tool names mix several conventions: bare verbs (remember, subscribe, forget), verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun_phrase (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and a brand-prefixed family (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*). While some prefixes are consistent, the overall pattern is inconsistent and not predictable. Names are readable but do not follow a single style.
With 33 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for its name 'Unpaywall', which implies a narrow open-access search utility. Even though the actual functionality is broad, the tool count is excessive and will overwhelm agents. Many tools (llms_txt generation, dependency scanning, memory) are unrelated to the core data-query function.
For the actual domain revealed by the descriptions—a comprehensive data research and prediction-market gateway—the tool surface is quite complete: it covers discovery, retrieval, grounding, entity resolution, comparison, validation, subscriptions, memory, and prediction-market analysis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no subscription update tool, no direct tool to list all data packs), but agents can work around them. If the domain is strictly 'Unpaywall/open access', it's severely incomplete, but the descriptions clearly indicate a broader scope.