get_paperPaper + all child notes (reviews, rebuttal, decision, metareview). Pass the forum id (= paper note id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forum_id | Yes | Forum (paper) note id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Paper and all related notes (reviews, rebuttal, decision, metareview) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "forum_id": "abc123XYZ"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "notes": {
+ "description": "Paper and all related notes (reviews, rebuttal, decision, metareview)",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "description": "Note content fields",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "forum": {
+ "description": "Forum (paper) id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Note identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "replyto": {
+ "description": "Parent note id if this is a reply",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "signatures": {
+ "description": "Author signatures",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the exact child notes returned (reviews, rebuttal, decision, metareview), which is not covered by annotations.
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 with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the essential parameter instruction. No redundant or unnecessary content.
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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter, and behavioral traits sufficiently. For a simple retrieval tool with complete annotations and schema, this is fully adequate.
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% and the description restates that forum_id is the paper note id. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema description, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves a paper and all its child notes (reviews, rebuttal, decision, metareview). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_note (single note) or list_submissions (list without full details).
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 specifies the required parameter (forum id) and its equivalence to paper note id. While it implicitly suggests use for fetching a complete paper, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid or compare to alternatives like search_notes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.