searchSearch Bioregistry for biological database prefixes by substring match against prefix name, title, or description (e.g. "gene ontology"). Returns up to limit matching prefix records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total number of matches | |
| query | Yes | The search query | |
| results | Yes | Matching prefix entries |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are limited by the 'limit' parameter, but does not elaborate on ordering, error handling, or other behavioral traits.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core functionality and an example. There is no 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?
Given the output schema exists (not shown) and the tool is relatively simple, the description adequately covers input behavior and result limits. It could mention case sensitivity or absence of results, but is largely complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only minimally addresses the 'limit' parameter ('Returns up to `limit` matching prefix records'). The 'query' parameter is not explicitly described beyond the overall purpose, and no details on format or defaults are given.
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 that the tool searches Bioregistry for prefixes by substring match against name, title, or description, with an example. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prefix' or 'prefixes' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 (searching for database prefixes), but lacks guidance on when not to use it or mentions of alternative tools among the siblings.
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.
Severe overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all of which route to the same 5,743-tool catalog with only subtle differences. The pair resolve (CURIE-to-URL) and resolve_entity (name-to-ID) share the same verb but mean completely different things in different domains, and the five polymarket tools have heavily overlapping purposes.
The set mixes multiple conventions: noun-only names (prefix, prefixes, search, resolve), verb_noun names (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, validate_claim), adjective_noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and vendor-prefixed names (ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). Some names break the pattern entirely, like forget and remember, and the plural prefix/prefixes pair is inconsistent.
35 tools is heavy for any single server, but the bigger problem is that roughly 31 tools are Pipeworx platform utilities (asking, memory, subscriptions, feedback) while only 4 serve the stated 'Bioregistry' purpose. A server named Bioregistry carrying prediction-market arbitrage and AI-visibility tools is poorly scoped regardless of the absolute count.
The Bioregistry surface is thin: search, prefix, prefixes, and resolve cover lookup/pagination but no registry management, and the remaining tools belong to an entirely different, unrelated domain. The server's apparent purpose ('Bioregistry') is barely served, while the Pipeworx functionality, though broad, is buried under an incongruent server name, making the overall surface incomplete and incoherent.