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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and scoping to the caller's subscriptions. This goes beyond the structured 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then a concise usage tip. No redundant words or fluff.
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 and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return fields and provides a clear use case, making it fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 the include_inactive parameter already described. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond implicit mention of 'active subscriptions,' so a baseline of 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 clearly states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing existing subscriptions for review and finding IDs to cancel.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It implies alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) but does not explicitly name them or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, and validate_claim all serve data-lookup purposes with unclear boundaries. The three xkcd comic tools are distinct but are buried under 31 unrelated tools, making selection confusing.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_first (get_comic, list_subscriptions), some are nouns (entity_profile, deep_research), some have prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and others are vague (scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt). The mixing of styles across the set makes it hard to predict naming.
With 34 tools and a server name of 'xkcd', the count is wildly disproportionate; only 3 tools relate to comics. Even as a general data-access server, 34 tools is heavy and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) that add bulk.
For the actual Pipeworx data domain, the surface is fairly comprehensive: querying, grounded answers, research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis are covered. However, there are notable gaps like no fetch-by-URI tool and no xkcd search/list capability, making the set incomplete for its name and slightly incomplete for its inferred domain.