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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds details on return fields and purpose, which is useful but not essential given the annotations. No behavioral 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-loading the core action and immediately listing return fields. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 list tool with good annotations and a single parameter, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and usage context. No output schema exists, but the return fields are listed. It could mention filtering behavior (e.g., only active by default), but the parameter cover inactivity. Overall complete enough.
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?
The input schema has one optional boolean parameter with a complete description in the schema itself. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for the parameter. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools, the resource 'subscriptions' is distinct from siblings like list_collections or list_sites.
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 tells when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear context and implies using before subscribe or unsubscribe. It doesn't mention when not to use, but the guidance is actionable.
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 have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk all target overlapping prediction-market signals, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities partially duplicate each other. The Webflow tools are distinct, but the dominant Pipeworx cluster is hard to navigate.
Naming mixes multiple conventions: clean verb_noun for Webflow tools (list_sites, get_collection_item), an ask_pipeworx family, plain single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and long noun-cluster names for prediction markets (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.
36 tools is excessive for a server named 'Webflow' — only about six tools actually concern the Webflow CMS (list_sites, get_site, list_collections, list_collection_items, get_collection_item, generate_llms_txt). The remaining ~30 tools form a completely different data-research/prediction-market/memory suite, making the server wildly over-scoped and mislabeled.
For the Webflow domain, the surface is read-only: sites and collections can be listed and items fetched, but there are no create, update, delete, or publish operations, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-Webflow tools do not address the stated server purpose, so the mismatch hurts completeness rather than fixing it.