searchFull-text search across all ontologies (or one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | 1-1000 (default 20). | |
| type | No | class | property | individual | |
| exact | No | Exact-match (default false). | |
| query | Yes | ||
| ontology | No | Restrict to one ontology id (optional). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | No | Search response containing matching terms |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by noting the scope ('all ontologies or one'), but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or return format details.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential scope and optional restriction in under 10 words, making every word purposeful.
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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient for a straightforward search tool. It correctly conveys the global scope and optional ontology restriction, though it lacks deeper context about matching behavior or supported search syntax.
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 high (80%), with only the required 'query' parameter lacking a description. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'or one' reflects the ontology parameter). The baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource as 'across all ontologies (or one)', which clearly distinguishes it from targeted tools like get_term or search_within. The phrase 'full-text search' adds specificity about how it operates.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or name sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially among Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded), betting research tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread), and memory tools (remember, recall, forget). An agent could easily select the wrong tool. Additionally, tools like 'discover_tools', 'search', and 'search_within' have unclear boundaries.
Most tool names use snake_case (e.g., 'entity_profile', 'validate_claim'), but there are inconsistencies with single-word verbs like 'forget', 'recall', 'remember', 'subscribe', 'unsubscribe', and the mixed pattern of 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'pipeworx_feedback'. Overall, the naming is somewhat consistent but not fully predictable.
With 32 tools, the server has a high but not extreme count. However, the tools span multiple unrelated domains (ontologies, financial data, betting, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), making the server feel like a collection of disparate features rather than a focused toolset. This reduces the appropriateness of the count for a single server.
The tool surface has significant gaps. For example, ontology tools lack create/update/delete operations; betting tools only provide research and analysis but no placement; memory tools allow save/recall/delete but not update; and there is no tool for user authentication or account management despite subscription features. The server covers many areas but none completely.