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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the specific return fields but does not disclose additional behavioral context like pagination or authorization requirements.
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 concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. No extraneous information.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and return fields adequately. Missing mention of pagination for large result sets, but not critical given simplicity.
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 clear description for the single optional parameter. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so it meets but does not exceed 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?
Clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates return fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like subscribe or unsubscribe, but the action is clear.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This informs when to use the tool, though it lacks mention of when not to use it.
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 overlapping purposes, especially the pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all route to the same data sources. Additionally, the server includes unrelated meta-tools (remember/recall/forget, generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback) that have no clear boundaries with the poverty data tools, and betting tools that seem out of place. The core poverty tools (get_poverty, get_poverty_regional, list_reference) are distinct, but the rest creates significant confusion.
Tool names are a mix of styles: some use snake_case (get_poverty, list_reference, suggest_questions), some use camelCase (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence), and others are single words (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming pattern is highly inconsistent, making it hard to predict related tool names.
With 34 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a 'Worldbank Poverty' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to poverty (Polymarket betting, AI marketing, npm package checks, LLM visibility). The core poverty functionality could be served by 3-5 tools, but instead the server includes dozens of extra tools from a generic data platform, making the count inappropriate for the stated domain.
For the poverty data domain, the tool surface is actually quite complete: get_poverty for country-level data, get_poverty_regional for aggregations, and list_reference for metadata. The only minor gap is a lack of a tool for comparing poverty across countries directly, but that is easy to work around by calling get_poverty multiple times. The extra meta-tools do not affect poverty data completeness.