wgs_searchList all IETF working groups in Datatracker with pagination; returns acronyms, names, area, and charter status for every active and concluded WG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | No | URL to next page of results | |
| count | No | Total number of working groups | |
| results | No | Array of working groups | |
| previous | No | URL to previous page of results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the inclusive scope (active and concluded) and the exact data fields returned, and it mentions pagination. It does not detail default values or rate limits, but given the strong annotation coverage, the additional information is sufficient.
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 wasted words. Every phrase carries substantive information: scope, pagination, and return fields.
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 low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects), the existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned, the inclusivity of the list, and pagination. No significant gaps remain.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pagination', which implies that 'limit' and 'offset' are pagination controls, but it doesn't explain their meaning, defaults, or constraints beyond that. This is minimal compensation for two common parameters.
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 the tool lists all IETF working groups in Datatracker, specifying the scope (active and concluded) and the returned fields (acronyms, names, area, charter status). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wg', which likely targets a single working group.
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 conveys a clear context: use for paginated listing of all working groups. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific lookups, so it stops short of full explicit exclusion guidance.
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.
Several tools have overlapping or poorly distinguished purposes. For instance, `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_beta` have nearly identical descriptions, and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` also shares the same routing but adds a different output format. The `ai_visibility_check` and `scan_competitor_ai_presence` tools also overlap significantly.
There is some consistency with verb_noun patterns (e.g., `resolve_entity`, `search_within`, `subscribe`, `unsubscribe`). However, there are many deviations: `ask_pipeworx`, `pipeworx_feedback`, `pipeworx_trending`, `entity_profile`, `scan_dependency`, and `polymarket_edges` break the pattern, mixing descriptive names with non-standard prefixes.
37 tools is slightly above the ideal range for a single MCP server, but the tools cover a very broad and varied domain (IETF data, company research, prediction markets, package scanning, memory, etc.). The count is high but still within a manageable scope for a multi-purpose utility server.
The server combines tools from two very different domains: IETF Datatracker (document/WG/person lookups) and Pipeworx (data retrieval, prediction markets, company analysis). The IETF-related tools are sparse and incomplete (only document search, document, person, wg, wgs_search, rfc are present—no ability to create or modify records). The Pipeworx side is extensive but leaves notable gaps (e.g., no tool for submitting comments or editing IETF documents).