licensesList Figshare license options (id, name, url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Available Figshare licenses |
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": "Available Figshare licenses",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "License ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "License name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "License URL",
+ "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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, informing the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds the output fields (id, name, url), which is useful for understanding the return structure. No contradictions with annotations; the description aligns with a read-only listing.
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 sentence, front-loaded with 'List', and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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, and an output schema, the description is entirely sufficient. It covers the purpose and the specific license fields. The annotations cover safety and idempotence, so no additional behavioral disclosure is 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this scores 4. The description also mentions the fields returned, which provides context for what the output contains.
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 'List Figshare license options (id, name, url)' which clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (Figshare license options), and the output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like categories or collections.
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: it is for listing Figshare license options. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the specificity of 'Figshare license options' makes it obvious when to use this tool versus other list tools. There are no exclusions or preconditions needed for such a simple list operation.
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.