searchFull-text search across Maven Central packages by groupId, artifactId, version, or tags. Returns artifact coordinates, latest version, and download timestamps for up to 200 matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | Max rows, 1-200 (default 20) | |
| query | Yes | Free-text query | |
| start | No | 0-based offset |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already confirm readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that results are limited to 200 matches and includes what is returned (coordinates, latest version, timestamps). No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence clearly states purpose, scope, and output. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
For a simple search tool with 3 parameters and output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, search fields, result limit, and output fields. Lacks pagination details but schema covers start and rows.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described (query, rows, start). Description does not add significant new meaning beyond schema, but provides context that search is on Maven Central packages.
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?
Description clearly states 'Full-text search across Maven Central packages' with specific fields (groupId, artifactId, version, tags) and output details (coordinates, latest version, download timestamps, up to 200 matches). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_coords and search_within.
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?
Description implies general search usage but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like search_by_coords or search_within. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.
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.