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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context that the tool lists only the caller's subscriptions and returns specific fields, which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict any 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and returns, and the second sentence gives practical guidance. No redundant phrases or 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?
This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, return fields, and use cases. With good annotations and schema coverage, nothing essential is missing.
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 for include_inactive is fully self-explanatory (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate. However, the tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'). It also names the returned fields, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from subscription mutation tools like subscribe/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 description clearly states when to use the tool: to review existing subscriptions before adding more or to find an id to cancel. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use cases are well-defined.
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 are near-indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping routing behavior. discover_tools vs suggest_questions and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence also create boundary ambiguity, making misselection likely for agents.
Names mix bare verbs (recall, remember, forget), brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and descriptive phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix convention, and the server name 'Wolfram Alpha' does not match the dominant pipeworx_/polymarket_ naming.
At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad data platform. Several unrelated add-ons (memory trio, ai_visibility, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) could live in separate servers, contributing to bloat and diluting the core purpose.
The data-research and prediction-market surfaces are fairly thorough (routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, subscriptions), but the Wolfram Alpha core is thin—only short_answer, full_query, and wolfram_compute—with no step-by-step solutions, units catalog, or history. The mismatched server name and unrelated tools indicate an incoherent scope with notable gaps.