Skip to main content
Glama

Doaj

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Journals

search_journals
Read-onlyIdempotent

DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) — search the curated index of vetted, peer-reviewed open-access journals, with free text or Lucene-style field queries. Returns each journal's DOAJ id, title, ISSNs, publisher, country, subject terms, licence and article-processing-charge details. Answers which open-access journals publish in a field, who publishes them, and what they charge authors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page
sortNoSort field:dir
queryYesFree-text or Lucene-style query
page_sizeNo1-100 (default 10)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoCurrent page
totalNoTotal results
resultsNoArray of journal results
pageSizeNoItems per page

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by explaining the 'curated index of vetted, peer-reviewed' nature and the return fields. No contradiction, and it enriches the behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the tool's identity (DOAJ) and purpose. Every sentence carries useful information: the index type, search syntax, returned fields, and the questions it answers.

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?

With a complete schema, output schema present, and annotations, the description covers the core functionality and expected results. It explains what is returned and what use cases it supports, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds the crucial note that queries can be free-text or Lucene-style, which enriches the query parameter semantics beyond the schema. This justifies a slight premium over the baseline 3.

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 tool searches the DOAJ curated index of open-access journals, distinguishing it from siblings like search_articles or get_journal. It specifies the resource (journals) and the action (search), plus the exact kind of data returned.

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?

The description explains what questions the tool answers (which journals publish in a field, who publishes them, charges), giving clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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

All Doaj 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have overlapping purposes: the three ask_pipeworx variants are nearly identical, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for opportunities, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence create confusion. Although descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily misselect among these.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun (get_article, search_journals, resolve_entity), but there are brand-prefixed names (ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback) and noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, bet_research) that break the pattern. The three ask_pipeworx variants are consistently named but confusable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a coherent server, especially one where many tools are meta-routes (ask_pipeworx, deep_research) that could consolidate functionality. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'heavy' and includes several one-off tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't fit the dominant data-access theme.

Completeness3/5

The DOAJ subset is complete for read-only search and retrieval, but the server lacks a clear domain: it mixes DOAJ, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. For the broader Pipeworx platform, there are some dead ends (e.g., no subscription editing, no raw historical market data, no batch tools), and the non-DOAJ tools create confusion about what the server is actually for.

Resources