latest_versionMost recent release version of (groupId, artifactId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | ||
| artifact_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | groupId queried | |
| artifact_id | Yes | artifactId queried | |
| latest_version | Yes | Most recent release version |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds minimal extra context (it returns a release version). It does not describe the output format or any side effects, but annotations cover safety.
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 extremely concise, fitting into a single sentence. While it is efficient, it risks being under-specified. Every word is necessary, but more detail could be added without harming conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose, but fails to provide context about the return structure (though output schema fills this) or usage scenarios. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'groupId' and 'artifactId' in a template phrase, without explaining their meaning, format, or restrictions. The examples in the schema partially help, but the description itself adds little value.
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 returns the most recent release version for a given groupId and artifactId. It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling 'list_versions' (which lists all versions) by focusing on 'latest'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.
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 such as 'list_versions'. The description does not indicate prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.
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 heavily overlapping purposes, especially ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The Polymarket tools are more distinct, but the boundary between Maven search tools and broader discovery tools like search, search_by_coords, discover_tools, and suggest_questions is not always obvious.
Naming is a mix of snake_case actions, branded prefixes like ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_*, plus inconsistent patterns like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. Some clusters are internally consistent, but the overall set follows no predictable convention.
35 tools is heavy for a server named 'Maven Central', and only a handful actually relate to Maven artifacts. The rest are Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools, making the set feel sprawling rather than purpose-scoped.
For the Maven Central domain, search, coordinate lookup, version listing, and latest-version retrieval cover core read-only needs. However, there is no direct artifact metadata/POM/dependency inspection, and the unrelated Pipeworx and Polymarket tools dilute the surface without filling obvious gaps in the stated domain.