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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by clarifying that it returns specific fields (id, type, etc.) and defaults to active subscriptions, and that it is scoped to the caller. No contradictions 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 concise sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage context. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. An agent can correctly invoke it without 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 one parameter described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the return fields, which helps an agent understand what data to expect, even though it doesn't restate parameter details.
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', specifying the verb (list) and resource (subscriptions) and adding scope (caller's active). It distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on reading.
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 provides explicit usage 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 doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though siblings imply them.
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 adjacent roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical in behavior, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve discovery, and the astronomy plus Polymarket scanners have overlapping boundaries. The descriptions are unusually detailed and do differentiate most tools, but the number of near-neighbor tools still creates real selection risk.
Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly descriptive, which helps, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun names (compare_entities, resolve_entity) sit alongside bare nouns (catalogs, object) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). It is readable but not a predictable verb_noun convention.
At 35 tools, the surface is well beyond what an agent can comfortably hold in mind. The set mixes a data-research core with one-off utilities like generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, and AI-visibility auditing, making it feel like a grab-bag rather than a scoped server.
The core data-research workflow is strongly covered: plain and grounded Q&A, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, recent changes, tool discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle all exist. Minor gaps remain, such as no subscription-update operation and no generic citation-fetch tool, but there are no serious dead ends.