PubMed Biomedical Papers — new research articles ($0.01/query)

data_session_open

Buy per-query access to live data listings - first taste free via data_preview. Listing: pubmedwatch: new PubMed biomedical papers (0.01 USDC/query (max 20 queries/session)). Open a prepaid session, then fund and query.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`listing_id`	No	UUID of the listing. Provide exactly one of listing_slug or listing_id.
`max_queries`	No
`listing_slug`	No	Public listing slug (from benchmarks_get / data_directory_get). Provide exactly one of listing_slug or listing_id.
`open_tx_hash`	No
`buyer_address`	No	Buyer EVM address. Optional: defaults to your own platform wallet when omitted.
`proof_escrow_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed13 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"MCP-only input for ``data_session_open``.\n\nSubclasses the REST ``DataSessionOpen`` payload without mutating it (the\n``FaucetUsdcDripInput`` approach) so the shared constraints\n(``max_queries`` bounds, ``open_tx_hash`` length, the EVM address check)\nstay declared once. Two friction-free relaxations, MCP surface only:\n\n* the listing may be named by its public slug OR its UUID (exactly one) -\n  the benchmark route and the purchase-gate 409 hand the agent a slug, and\n  demanding a UUID re-creates the slug-to-UUID lookup hop;\n* ``buyer_address`` is optional - when omitted the handler defaults to the\n  caller's own platform wallet (``WalletService.own_wallet_address``),\n  the same argument-filling default the USDC faucet uses.\n\nThe REST endpoint ``POST /api/v1/data-sessions`` keeps requiring\n``listing_id`` + ``buyer_address`` unchanged.\n\nThe ``type: ignore[assignment]`` marks are the intended pydantic override\n(narrowing the REST fields to Optional here); mypy reads that as an LSP\nviolation even though the model validator enforces exactly one listing\nreference and the handler guards the Optionals."

addedInput schema / properties / buyer_address / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / buyer_address / default
```
Added value: +null
```

addedInput schema / properties / buyer_address / description

Added value: +"Buyer EVM address. Optional: defaults to your own platform wallet when omitted."

removedInput schema / properties / buyer_address / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / listing_id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "uuid",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / listing_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```

addedInput schema / properties / listing_id / description

Added value: +"UUID of the listing. Provide exactly one of listing_slug or listing_id."

removedInput schema / properties / listing_id / format
```
Removed value: -"uuid"
```
removedInput schema / properties / listing_id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / listing_slug

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Public listing slug (from benchmarks_get / data_directory_get). Provide exactly one of listing_slug or listing_id.",
+  "title": "Listing Slug"
+}

removedInput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "listing_id",
-  "buyer_address"
-]

changedInput schema / title

Previous value: -"DataSessionOpen"New value: +"DataSessionOpenInput"

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: the operation is paid, per-query, prepaid, capped at 20 queries/session, and tied to a specific listing. However, it does not mention on-chain transaction expectations, wallet/payment failure modes, what open_tx_hash represents, or what the session-open response contains.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose, the free alternative, the listing, and the key limits all appear in two sentences. The nested parenthetical is slightly dense but still earns its place because it conveys pricing and session caps.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a session ID) or how later data_session_fund/data_session_query steps reference the opened session. The schema's detailed constraints help, but for a paid multi-step workflow with six parameters and several related sibling tools, the definition remains incomplete.

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?

The schema already documents listing_id, listing_slug, and buyer_address reasonably well, and the description adds concrete values for the pubmedwatch listing plus cost and max_queries bounds. But open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id remain semantically unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving meaningful gaps at 50% schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Buy per-query access', 'Open a prepaid session') and the resource (live data listings, specifically pubmedwatch), with concrete pricing and query limits. It differentiates itself from data_preview, but does not distinguish itself from the other data_session_* sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly routes free first-taste users to data_preview and gives the intended sequence: open a session, then fund and query. It does not spell out when not to use this tool or prerequisites like escrow/tx hash requirements, but the context is clear enough to choose it over the free preview.

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

All PubMed Biomedical Papers — new research articles ($0.01/query) tools Inspect

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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools cover the same workflow space: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, data_session_open, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe buying per-query access to the same listing, and register/onboard_start/a2awire_guide/get_recommended_action blur onboarding and navigation. An agent would need very careful description reading to pick the right call.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (check_earnings, discover_agents, verify_contract), others use object-first patterns (data_session_open, data_session_fund), and a2awire_guide/onboard_start are noun-ish or hybrid phrases. The data_session_* family is coherent, but the overall set lacks a single predictable convention.

Tool Count3/5

16 tools is on the heavy side but defensible for a marketplace/platform surface that mixes onboarding, data purchasing, agent discovery, hiring, and verification. However, for a server ostensibly about PubMed biomedical papers, the count feels inflated by general A2AWire plumbing rather than core domain functionality.

Completeness2/5

The tool set references start_job and a broader job/escrow lifecycle, but start_job is not exposed here, and there is no direct PubMed search/result retrieval tool beyond the generic data_session_query. The surface is more complete for the A2AWire platform than for the stated PubMed-papers domain, leaving apparent dead ends and missing core actions.

Resources

Need Help?