Arxiv
Server Details
arXiv MCP — preprint server search (free, no auth)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-arxiv
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
The tool set mixes arXiv-specific tools (get_paper, search_papers) with a large number of Pipeworx data tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, etc.). Many Pipeworx tools have overlapping purposes, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task, especially since the server name suggests a narrower focus.
Tool names consistently use lowercase with underscores, which is good. However, the naming does not reflect the server's intended domain: only two tools (get_paper, search_papers) align with 'Arxiv', while the rest (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) belong to a different system, creating inconsistency in thematic naming.
13 tools is a reasonable number, but the set is split between two unrelated purposes: arXiv and Pipeworx. This misalignment makes the tool count inappropriate for a coherent server named 'Arxiv', as the majority of tools are out of scope.
For arXiv, only search and get are provided, missing many common operations (e.g., list categories, author lookup, updates). The Pipeworx tools are numerous and seem comprehensive for that platform, but they are irrelevant to the server's stated purpose. Thus, the tool surface is severely incomplete for the Arxiv domain.
Available Tools
13 toolsask_pipeworxAInspect
Answer a natural-language question by automatically picking the right data source. Use when a user asks "What is X?", "Look up Y", "Find Z", "Get the latest…", "How much…", and you don't want to figure out which Pipeworx pack/tool to call. Routes across SEC EDGAR, FRED, BLS, FDA, Census, ATTOM, USPTO, weather, news, crypto, stocks, and 300+ other sources. Pipeworx picks the right tool, fills arguments, returns the result. Examples: "What is the US trade deficit with China?", "Adverse events for ozempic", "Apple's latest 10-K", "Current unemployment rate".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Your question or request in natural language |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It says Pipeworx picks the right tool and fills arguments, but does not explain limitations, error handling, or what happens if no tool can answer. The internal process is opaque.
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 and three examples convey the tool's value proposition with zero waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, usage, and examples. Missing is mention of output format or handling of ambiguous questions, but overall sufficient.
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 covers the sole parameter with a clear description. The description adds context ('in plain English' and 'natural language') that reinforces the parameter's purpose, exceeding the schema alone.
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's purpose: answering natural language questions by selecting the best data source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers or get_paper by being a general-purpose question-answering tool that abstracts away specific tool selection.
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 advises to just describe what you need, implying this is for natural language queries. It provides concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_entitiesAInspect
Compare 2–5 companies (or drugs) side by side in one call. Use when a user says "compare X and Y", "X vs Y", "how do X, Y, Z stack up", "which is bigger", or wants tables/rankings of revenue / net income / cash / debt across companies — or adverse events / approvals / trials across drugs. type="company": pulls revenue, net income, cash, long-term debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL for tickers like AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL. type="drug": pulls adverse-event report counts (FAERS), FDA approval counts, active trial counts. Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs. Replaces 8–15 sequential agent calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Entity type: "company" or "drug". | |
| values | Yes | For company: 2–5 tickers/CIKs (e.g., ["AAPL","MSFT"]). For drug: 2–5 names (e.g., ["ozempic","mounjaro"]). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses return data (paired data + URIs) and input constraints (2-5 entities, type-specific). It does not mention side effects (assumed read-only), rate limits, or auth needs, but provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.
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, front-loaded with primary purpose, no filler. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, type-specific output, and efficiency benefit.
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 no output schema, the description explains return data concisely (paired data + URIs). It covers input constraints and type-specific fields. Could be improved by mentioning error cases or exact format, but is generally complete for a comparison tool.
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% and already describes type and values with examples. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the returned data per type, but does not introduce new 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 specifies a clear action: 'Compare 2–5 entities side by side in one call.' It distinguishes between two entity types (company and drug) with specific data points, and contrasts with sequential calls (8-15), making the tool's purpose highly specific and distinct from siblings.
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 implies when to use (efficiency, side-by-side comparison) and mentions replacing sequential calls, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like resolve_entity or search_papers for individual lookups. Clear context but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
discover_toolsAInspect
Find tools by describing the data or task. Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: SEC filings, financials, revenue, profit, FDA drugs, adverse events, FRED economic data, Census demographics, BLS jobs/unemployment/inflation, ATTOM real estate, ClinicalTrials, USPTO patents, weather, news, crypto, stocks. Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names + descriptions. Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description indicates it returns relevant tool names and descriptions, but doesn't specify rate limits, pagination, or confirmation that it's read-only. Adequate for a search tool.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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?
No output schema, but the description states it returns tool names and descriptions, sufficient for its discovery purpose. Complete enough given low complexity.
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%. Description adds natural language usage context for query but doesn't add meaning beyond schema for either parameter. Baseline score.
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 explicitly states it searches the tool catalog by describing a need, distinguishing it from siblings like search_papers or resolve_entity.
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?
It provides explicit guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones.' No alternatives or exclusions, but clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
entity_profileAInspect
Get everything about a company in one call. Use when a user asks "tell me about X", "give me a profile of Acme", "what do you know about Apple", "research Microsoft", "brief me on Tesla", or you'd otherwise need to call 10+ pack tools across SEC EDGAR, SEC XBRL, USPTO, news, and GLEIF. Returns recent SEC filings, latest revenue/net income/cash position fundamentals, USPTO patents matched by assignee, recent news mentions, and the LEI (legal entity identifier) — all with pipeworx:// citation URIs. Pass a ticker like "AAPL" or zero-padded CIK like "0000320193".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Entity type. Only "company" supported today; person/place coming soon. | |
| value | Yes | Ticker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description fully discloses returned data types (SEC, XBRL, patents, etc.) and citation URIs. Could mention performance implications but not required; score reflects solid transparency.
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?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then details, no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value.
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?
Despite no output schema, description thoroughly covers what data is returned and the format (citation URIs), making it complete for a profile tool.
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 has 100% coverage, but description adds value by clarifying value accepts ticker or CIK, and that names are not supported, going beyond 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 it returns a full profile across multiple packs, specifies contents for 'company' type, and distinguishes from siblings like compare_entities and ask_pipeworx by emphasizing consolidation.
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 provides when to use (full profile), when not to (federal contracts use usa_recipient_profile), and a critical prerequisite (use resolve_entity for names).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
forgetBInspect
Delete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates deletion is irreversible implicitly, but lacks explicit details about permanence, confirmation steps, or side effects. A simple 'Delete' is insufficient for a destructive operation.
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 extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant words. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve completeness.
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?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about return values (no output schema) and potential confirmation, which are important for a destructive tool.
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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'key' parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action 'Delete', the resource 'stored memory', and the method 'by key'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' (store) and 'recall' (retrieve).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions provided. The description only states the action without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_paperAInspect
Fetch a single arXiv paper by its ID (e.g., "2310.06825", "2310.06825v2", or legacy "cs.CL/0301001"). Returns full metadata: title, authors, abstract, categories, DOI (if linked), PDF URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arxiv_id | Yes | arXiv identifier (with or without version suffix) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses what is returned (metadata, PDF URL) but does not discuss potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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, all essential. It front-loads the primary action and provides specific examples and return details without unnecessary elaboration. Efficient and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the main behavior: what ID formats are accepted and what data is returned. It lacks mention of possible error states or network issues, but overall sufficient for a straightforward fetch operation.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid ID formats ('2310.06825', 'cs.CL/0301001'), clarifying what the parameter should look like beyond the schema's brief description.
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 fetches a single arXiv paper by ID and lists the returned metadata (title, authors, abstract, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `search_papers` by focusing on retrieval by ID.
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 example ID formats and mentions retrieval of full metadata, implying use when a specific ID is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites, which is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pipeworx_feedbackAInspect
Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | bug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else. | |
| context | No | Optional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to. | |
| message | Yes | Your feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rate limit of 5 messages per identifier per day and notes it is 'Free' (likely meaning no cost). It does not detail the feedback handling process (e.g., async delivery, confirmation), but the basic behavioral constraints are conveyed.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a rate-limit note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately useful guidelines. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what to include, rate limiting, and the optional context fields. It does not mention whether a response or confirmation is sent, but that is not critical for an agent's invocation decision.
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% and the description adds value by explaining the enum values in type (e.g., 'bug = something broke'), specifying message constraints (plain text, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), and clarifying that context is optional structured context. This supplements the schema definitions.
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's purpose: 'Send feedback to the Pipeworx team.' It enumerates specific use cases (bug reports, feature requests, missing data, praise), making it distinct from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools which serve different purposes.
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 good usage guidance: what to include (describe what was tried in terms of Pipeworx tools/data), what not to include (end-user prompt verbatim), and rate limits (5 per day). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios like general questions, but the listed use cases cover most feedback types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recallAInspect
Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument). Use to look up context the agent stored earlier — the user's target ticker, an address, prior research notes — without re-deriving it from scratch. Scoped to your identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID). Pair with remember to save, forget to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the dual functionality but does not mention that it is read-only, side effects, or error handling. Some gaps remain.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
No output schema, so description should explain return values. It mentions retrieving or listing, but does not specify format, what happens if key is missing, or if listing returns keys or full memories.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so description adds marginal value beyond clarifying omission behavior. Baseline 3 applies.
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 it retrieves a memory by key or lists all memories if key is omitted, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'forget'.
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?
It explicitly says to use this tool to retrieve context saved earlier, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recent_changesAInspect
What's new with a company in the last N days/months? Use when a user asks "what's happening with X?", "any updates on Y?", "what changed recently at Acme?", "brief me on what happened with Microsoft this quarter", "news on Apple this month", or you're monitoring for changes. Fans out to SEC EDGAR (recent filings), GDELT (news mentions in window), and USPTO (patents granted) in parallel. since accepts ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative shorthand ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Returns structured changes + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Entity type. Only "company" supported today. | |
| since | Yes | Window start — ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring. | |
| value | Yes | Ticker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT, and USPTO, returns structured changes, counts, and URIs. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but for a read-oriented tool this is sufficient.
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 long and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds essential details about types, parameters, and returns. While dense, every part contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the return structure (structured changes, total_changes, URIs) and explains parallel execution. It handles a complex tool well, but omits pagination or result limits, which would improve completeness.
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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'since' format (ISO or relative) and recommended values like '30d', and clarifies that 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. This supplements the schema without redundancy.
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 immediately states the tool's purpose: 'What's new about an entity since a given point in time.' It specifies behavior for type 'company' and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on temporal changes and multiple data sources.
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 usage examples like 'brief me on what happened with X' and 'change-monitoring workflows.' It explains the supported entity type and parameter formats, though it does not explicitly list when to avoid using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rememberAInspect
Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference") | |
| value | Yes | Value to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses critical behavior: 'Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions last 24 hours.' Adds transparency about persistence and session limits beyond basic store operation.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage and behavioral context. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
Completeness is high for a simple store tool. Describes input (key-value), usage, and persistence behavior. No output schema, but return value is minimal (implicitly success). Could mention response, but adequate.
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 clear descriptions for both 'key' and 'value'. Description does not add significant extra meaning beyond 'session memory' context, but schema already provides examples.
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?
Clearly states 'Store a key-value pair in your session memory' with specific verb and resource. The description effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'forget' and 'recall' by emphasizing storage and session memory.
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 guides when to use: 'save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls.' Does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_entityAInspect
Look up the canonical/official identifier for a company or drug. Use when a user mentions a name and you need the CIK (for SEC), ticker (for stock data), RxCUI (for FDA), or LEI — the ID systems that other tools require as input. Examples: "Apple" → AAPL / CIK 0000320193, "Ozempic" → RxCUI 1991306 + ingredient + brand. Returns IDs plus pipeworx:// citation URIs. Use this BEFORE calling other tools that need official identifiers. Replaces 2–3 lookup calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Entity type: "company" or "drug". | |
| value | Yes | For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., "ozempic", "metformin"). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses supported types and return format (IDs and URIs), but does not discuss error handling, multiple matches, or authorization. The behavior is well-described for a read-only resolution tool.
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 four sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently communicates all key points.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (IDs and URIs). It covers the necessary context for using the tool, though lacks error scenarios or examples of URI formats.
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% and parameter descriptions are already detailed. The description reiterates these examples and adds context, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 resolves entities to canonical IDs for company and drug types, using a single call, and explicitly mentions it replaces multiple lookup calls, distinguishing it from other tools that might require sequential steps.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (for company or drug entity resolution) and notes it consolidates multiple lookups, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_papersAInspect
Search arXiv preprints. Plain text searches all fields; use prefixes for targeted queries: au:hinton (author), ti:transformer (title), abs:diffusion (abstract), cat:cs.AI (category), all:quantum (any field). Combine with AND/OR/ANDNOT, e.g., "ti:transformer AND cat:cs.LG". Returns id, title, authors, abstract, categories, published date, PDF URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Query string. Plain text or field-prefixed (au:, ti:, abs:, cat:, all:). Combine terms with AND, OR, ANDNOT. | |
| sort_by | No | relevance | lastUpdatedDate | submittedDate (default relevance) | |
| sort_order | No | ascending | descending (default descending) | |
| max_results | No | Maximum papers to return (1-100, default 10) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the query syntax, sorting, and return fields (id, title, authors, etc.). It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a simple search tool, the transparency is high.
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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys all essential information in a logical order: purpose, prefix usage, combining terms, sort options, and return fields. No redundant content.
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 tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description completely covers its functionality, including query construction and return values. No missing context for correct invocation.
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?
Although input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, the description adds significant value by explaining prefix syntax and providing examples, which enhances understanding 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 it searches arXiv preprints, explains prefix usage (au:, ti:, etc.), and specifies the return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling 'get_paper', which likely retrieves a single paper.
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 instructions on when to use prefixes and how to combine queries with AND/OR/ANDNOT, as well as sort options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, though no direct sibling search tool exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_claimAInspect
Fact-check, verify, validate, or confirm/refute a natural-language factual claim or statement against authoritative sources. Use when an agent needs to check whether something a user said is true ("Is it true that…?", "Was X really…?", "Verify the claim that…", "Validate this statement…"). v1 supports company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash position for public US companies) via SEC EDGAR + XBRL. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported), extracted structured form, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and percent delta. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → numeric comparison).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | Natural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully informs behavior: returns verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta. Does not disclose side effects or rate limits, but is clear about its output and supported claim types.
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?
Three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, supported domain, and output details. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with high schema coverage, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and return value. No additional documentation needed.
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?
Only one parameter with schema describing it adequately. Description adds context about supported claim types and provides examples, enhancing meaning 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 function: fact-checking natural-language claims against authoritative sources. It specifies supported domains (company-financial claims for US public companies) and distinguishes from siblings by detailing unique capabilities.
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?
Provides explicit context on when to use it (financial claims, public US companies) and notes it replaces sequential agent calls. Lacks explicit 'do not use' instructions but scope is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!