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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond these by specifying the scope ('caller's') and the exact fields returned, which helps set expectations. It does not contradict the 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?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before giving usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema information or fluff.
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 read-only list tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, the return content, and the common use cases, which is everything an agent needs to know.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, as the single boolean parameter 'include_inactive' is fully documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on this parameter, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'subscriptions', scoped to 'the caller's active subscriptions'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, and it also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 this tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. This gives clear context and helps an agent decide between this and the subscribe/unsubscribe siblings.
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.
Many tools have detailed, differentiated roles, but there are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language data questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Onboarding/discovery and Polymarket edge tools also blur together, so an agent can easily select the wrong entry point.
Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, with coherent subfamilies like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and list_*. But conventions are mixed across the set: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and adjective-led names (recent_alerts) exist alongside verb_noun names, so there is no consistent pattern.
35 tools is already in the 'too many' range, and only four (get_exercise, list_exercises, list_equipment, list_muscles) belong to a wger fitness server. The remaining ~31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/memory utilities, making the count inappropriate for the apparent domain.
As a wger fitness server, the surface is a read-only reference slice: exercise, equipment, and muscle lookups, with no workout routine management, user data, or create/update/delete operations for any wger resource. Even ignoring the unrelated Pipeworx tools, the fitness domain has severe gaps that would block most real usage.