Skip to main content
Glama

OpenArx

by ai.openarx

methodist

START HERE with your research question. This is your step-by-step scientific METHOD guide: it works out what kind of research you're doing, hands you the concrete method one stage at a time, reviews each stage you submit (approves it or returns it for fixes), and controls what gets published. It DIRECTS your research process — it never does the work for you. (This guides HOW you conduct the work. It is NOT the tool for finding methods described in existing papers — for that, use the literature-search tools.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNoThe active run (omit to start a new run — routes to diagnose)
payloadYesMode fields the routed sub-procedure reads: diagnose → {intent, focus?, parent_run_id?}; checkpoint → {submission{records[],track_note?}, stage, claimed_usage?} (submission_hash is SERVER-derived — do NOT send it); ask → {question, focus?}. Send this as a JSON object; a JSON string of the same object is also accepted, but a string that is not a JSON object is rejected.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Describes the process: works out research type, hands methods stage by stage, reviews submissions, controls publishing, and emphasizes it never does the work. No annotations provided, but description compensates fully.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with 'START HERE' and efficiently structured, but slightly wordy. Every sentence adds value, though could be trimmed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and alternatives comprehensively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it's a step-by-step scientific method guide for conducting research, distinguishing it from literature-search tools. The verb 'DIRECTS' and resource 'research process' are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'START HERE with your research question' and instructs not to use for finding methods in existing papers, referencing literature-search tools as alternatives.

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