Skip to main content
Glama

Discover Tools

discover_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find tools by describing the data or task. Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: SEC filings, financials, revenue, profit, FDA drugs, adverse events, FRED economic data, Census demographics, BLS jobs/unemployment/inflation, ATTOM real estate, ClinicalTrials, USPTO patents, weather, news, crypto, stocks. Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed. Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for query.
taskNoAlias for query.
limitNoMaximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50)
queryYesNatural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries"). Accepts task, q, description, search as aliases.
searchNoAlias for query.
descriptionNoAlias for query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / description
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for query.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / q
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for query.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Natural language description of what you want to do (e.g., \"analyze housing market trends\", \"look up FDA drug approvals\", \"find trade data between countries\")"New value: +"Natural language description of what you want to do (e.g., \"analyze housing market trends\", \"look up FDA drug approvals\", \"find trade data between countries\"). Accepts task, q, description, search as aliases."
    • addedInput schema / properties / search
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for query.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / task
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for query.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "query": "look up FDA drug approvals"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "query": "analyze housing market trends"
      +  }
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed' and returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)', which provides behavioral detail beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by examples and return details. While slightly long, every sentence adds value and it is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (top-N tools with schemas and examples) and when to use it (first, for exploration). It is complete for this tool's purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides example queries and mentions aliases, adding marginal value beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Find tools by describing the data or task', indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first call for exploring available tools, unlike the specialized siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available', providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the context strongly implies appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set includes both OpenReview-specific tools (e.g., get_paper, list_submissions) and a large number of unrelated tools for Pipeworx, Polymarket, and SEC filings. While individual descriptions are clear, the mix of domains creates confusion about which tools to use for a given task, leading to potential misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some use underscore_case (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), some are verb_noun (get_paper, list_venues), and others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage). The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the tool set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the count is too high for a server supposedly focused on OpenReview. Only about 6 tools are directly related to OpenReview; the rest are for unrelated domains like prediction markets, data retrieval, and memory management. The scope is unclear and overloaded.

Completeness2/5

For the OpenReview domain, the tool set covers basic retrieval (get_paper, search_notes, list_submissions) but lacks operations like creating or updating notes, which are common in a review platform. The inclusion of many non-OpenReview tools does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the surface incomplete for its stated purpose.