search_by_coordsStructured lookup by Maven coordinates. Provide any combination of groupId / artifactId / version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | 1-200 (default 20) | |
| start | No | 0-based offset | |
| version | No | version | |
| group_id | No | groupId — e.g. "org.springframework" | |
| artifact_id | No | artifactId — e.g. "spring-core" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'Structured lookup' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, response format, or rate limits. With annotations providing baseline safety info, a 3 is appropriate.
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. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and usage pattern.
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 that the tool is straightforward with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential lookup behavior without needing to explain return values, which the output schema handles.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by emphasizing 'any combination', which clarifies that parameters are optional and can be used flexibly. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.
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 'Structured lookup by Maven coordinates' with specific parameters (groupId, artifactId, version). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like 'search' and 'search_within', which likely handle free-text or other queries.
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 Maven coordinate lookups and states 'Provide any combination', indicating flexibility. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer the use case.
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.