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 and idempotentHint. The description adds value by listing return fields but doesn't introduce new behavioral context.
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 sentences, first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, use cases, and return format.
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 a good description for the 'include_inactive' parameter. The tool description doesn't add additional 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific return fields, distinguishing 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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear when-to-use guidance.
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 distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but the server mixes WMATA transit tools (bus routes, rail predictions) with unrelated general-purpose tools (deep_research, polymarket_arbitrage). This broad scope can confuse an agent expecting a focused transit server.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Many are noun_noun (bus_routes, rail_lines) or verb_properNoun (ask_pipeworx), and the naming conventions vary wildly across different domains (e.g., validate_claim vs entity_profile vs scan_dependency).
41 tools is excessive for a WMATA transit server. The vast majority of tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, polymarket_*) are not related to WMATA, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.
The WMATA-specific tools cover core bus and rail operations (incidents, predictions, routes, stations). However, gaps like fare info and elevator status are missing. The non-transit tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's apparent focus.