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 readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds context about return fields and usage purpose, which is valuable beyond 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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and usage. Could mention open-world or pagination, but not essential.
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 description covers the only parameter (include_inactive) at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra parameter semantics 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 the tool lists active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by indicating it's for review before adding or to find an ID 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?
Explicitly says to use for reviewing monitored subscriptions before adding more or finding an ID to cancel. While it doesn't say when not to use, the sibling tools provide context for alternatives.
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, such as multiple query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). While descriptions help differentiate, the clustering of similar functions may cause confusion.
All tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: some start with verbs (forget, remember, recall) while others start with nouns (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending). The naming is generally clear with minor inconsistencies.
With 31 tools, the set is slightly large but appropriate given the broad scope covering company data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more. A few tools like yesterdays_number_get seem out of place, but overall the count is reasonable.
The tool set covers many domains comprehensively (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets), but there are notable gaps such as no direct web search or stock price tool beyond routed queries. The server feels like a collection of capabilities rather than a unified domain.