Skip to main content
Glama

OpenArx

by ai.openarx

get_my_documents

List documents you have submitted through OpenArx Portal.

Status reference: downloaded — accepted, queued for indexing parsing — extracting text from latex/markdown/PDF translating — auto-translating to English (non-en originals only) chunking — splitting content into semantic chunks enriching — extracting code/dataset/benchmark links embedding — generating vector embeddings (Gemini + SPECTER2) ready — fully indexed, searchable failed — pipeline error (retryable) download_failed — source fetch failed (retryable; rare for Portal submissions) duplicate — detected as duplicate of an existing document rejected — quality/spam gate rejection (terminal, non-retryable) listed — registry-only entry (not user-submitted, only visible to operators)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results
run_idNoOptional. The active methodist run_id (as returned by the methodist diagnose / get_current_dose door). Pass it whenever you call this tool while working inside a run, so the call is attributed to that run for the §8 usage crosscheck — attribution is run-anchored, so it stays correct even if your access token refreshes mid-run. Must be YOUR run: a run_id owned by a different principal, or a non-existent run_id, is rejected.
statusNoFilter by status; see Status reference in tool descriptionall

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by scoping to user's own submissions and detailing statuses. However, it omits information about pagination, default ordering, rate limits, and the fact that it only returns documents from the authenticated user. This leaves gaps in understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the lengthy status table makes the description verbose. While the table is useful, a more concise format could improve readability without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (no output schema, simple parameters), the description covers the primary function and explains the status filter. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it over siblings and does not mention output formatting or pagination behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by providing a detailed status reference for the status parameter. The descriptions for limit and run_id are already adequate in the schema, so the overall added value is above average.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('documents'), and the scope ('you have submitted through OpenArx Portal'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or get_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a detailed status reference that aids in using the status filter, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document_status or search. Context such as comparison with sibling tools is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OpenArx toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between explore_topic and methodist_explore_topic, and between find_related and find_related_claims. Descriptions generally differentiate them well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with methodist_ prefix for research workflow tools, though 'paginate' and 'methodist' (without underscore) are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single server's scope, exceeding the 25+ threshold. The server combines two major workflows (literature search and research process guidance), which would be better split.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: multiple search modes, document submission and versioning, topic exploration, evidence checking, methodology search, and research guidance. Minor gaps include lack of document deletion or metadata update without new version.

Resources