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 convey readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and the caller-specific scope, enhancing transparency beyond the structured data.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, the scope ('caller's'), and typical use cases. Combined with strong annotations, there are no significant gaps for an agent to mis-invoke it.
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 single optional parameter include_inactive is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline.
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 lists the caller's active subscriptions, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscriptions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on read-only listing.
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 suggests when to use the tool: to review current monitoring before adding more subscriptions or to find a subscription id to cancel. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between this list operation and mutation operations.
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 tool families have ambiguous boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router (with beta currently identical), and the six polymarket tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in scanning and pricing edges. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also all function as 'what should I query' entry points. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without carefully reading long descriptions.
Many tools follow a clear verb-first snake_case pattern (get_article_extract, resolve_entity, subscribe, validate_claim), and families like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, notable noun-phrase outliers such as entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_edge_tracker break the convention. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full set.
36 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a typical MCP server, and for a server named 'wikipedia' it is especially disproportionate: only 5 tools actually deal with Wikipedia while 31 are Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and feedback utilities. The count reflects a broad all-in-one platform crammed into a Wikipedia-labeled surface rather than a well-scoped server. This is a significant scope mismatch.
The Wikipedia portion is reasonably complete for read-only lookup: search, summary, sections, full extract, and random discovery cover common encyclopedic questions without dead ends. The broader Pipeworx surface is also extensive, with query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools. Minor gaps remain (no article categories/history, no update for subscriptions, no direct fetch of a citation URI), but they are workable.