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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the scope is limited to the caller's subscriptions and that the default excludes cancelled ones (which is also in the schema but reinforced). It does not contradict any annotation.
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-loads the purpose, and concludes with practical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
With a simple single-parameter schema, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing return fields and specifying scope. It covers purpose, usage, and expected output, making it complete for this read-only list tool.
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 fully describes the single optional parameter include_inactive with a clear description and default. The tool description does not elaborate on it further, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage. It adds no extra semantic meaning 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and enumerates the returned fields. 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?
The second sentence explicitly advises using this tool before adding more subscriptions or to find an id to cancel, which signals when to use it relative to subscribe/unsubscribe. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context makes it clear.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar (one grounded), and multiple Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) could be confused despite distinct roles. Overall, an agent can usually differentiate with careful reading.
Tool names follow mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others start with prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_, scan_), and a few are nouns (most_read, on_this_day). While readable, there is no consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.
34 tools is high but not extreme for a broad-scope server. However, the server name 'wikifeed' suggests a Wikipedia focus, yet only 4 of 34 tools relate to Wikipedia (featured_article, most_read, on_this_day, picture_of_day). The tool count feels excessive relative to the name, but the actual breadth may justify it.
The toolset covers a wide range of domains (company data, prediction markets, factual queries, Wikipedia) with reasonable depth. Minor gaps exist: no Wikipedia search or edit tools, no direct tool for simple web search (relying on ask_pipeworx). Overall, agents can accomplish most tasks without hitting dead ends.