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 no destructive action. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying that it lists active subscriptions by default, which aligns with the include_inactive parameter. No contradictions.
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: the first defines the action and output, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, information is 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 nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance completely. No missing information for an agent to decide or 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 single parameter already described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond stating 'active subscriptions' (which is already implied by the default false for include_inactive). No extra param semantics provided.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe'. It also lists the fields returned, adding specificity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This covers key usage contexts, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name other tools.
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.
The set mixes two entirely different domains: 4 Zoom tools and 31 Pipeworx/prediction-market tools. Within the Pipeworx side, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions overlap heavily, as do the five polymarket_* tools. An agent could easily select the wrong variant despite the long descriptions.
The Zoom tools follow a clean zoom_* pattern, and there are subfamilies like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_*, but the overall set is a mix of snake_case verbs, bare nouns, and inconsistent styles (bet_research, entity_profile, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions, pipeworx_feedback, validate_claim). No single predictable convention governs the server's tool names.
35 tools is heavy for any server, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's declared 'Zoom' purpose. Only 4 of 35 tools actually concern Zoom, making the count both bloated and mismatched. A focused Zoom server would need far fewer tools; a Pipeworx data server would need a different name.
For a Zoom server, the surface is critically incomplete: only read-only list/get operations exist for meetings, recordings, and the current user, with no create, update, delete, or invite functionality. The Pipeworx side is comparatively rich and complete, but that does not serve the Zoom domain implied by the server name, so significant gaps remain for the apparent purpose.