categoriesList Figshare categories (parent → leaves).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Figshare taxonomy categories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Figshare taxonomy categories",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Category ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "parent_id": {
+ "description": "Parent category ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "taxonomy_id": {
+ "description": "Taxonomy ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Category name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'parent → leaves' hierarchy detail, providing useful context about the output structure beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.
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 that directly states the action and resource. There is no verbosity or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It provides the key detail about hierarchy and does not need to explain return values or usage conditions beyond what is already structured.
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 zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description is clear enough for the agent to invoke it correctly without parameter details.
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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('Figshare categories'), and it even clarifies the hierarchical structure ('parent → leaves'). This distinguishes it from generic listing tools and aligns with the tool's name and title.
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 usage for fetching the category hierarchy but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools, so the guidance is only implied.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research route the same class of questions, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a confusing cluster. Some clusters (Figshare fetch/search, memory, subscriptions) are distinct, but overall boundaries are frequently unclear.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). The main inconsistency is the mix of bare-noun Figshare resource names (article, articles, collection, collections) with verb-phrase tool names.
38 tools is well above the comfortable scope for a coherent server, especially one named Figshare. Most of the surface is unrelated to Figshare, bundling Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm checks into a single connection.
The Figshare read-side is reasonably covered (search, article metadata, files, collections, categories, licenses), but there are no create/update/delete or account/upload operations. The broader advertised surface is a grab bag with no clear domain boundary, and several subdomains are shallow while prediction markets are over-represented.