list_venuesList venue groups (conferences, workshops). Use the returned group id to query submissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-1000 (default 50) | |
| query | No | Free-text filter on group id / name | |
| offset | No | 0-based offset |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total number of venues matching the query | |
| venues | Yes | List of venue group IDs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "ICLR"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 100,
+ "offset": 0,
+ "query": "NeurIPS"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total number of venues matching the query",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "venues": {
+ "description": "List of venue group IDs",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "total",
+ "venues"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists venue groups and their ids are used for submissions, which is consistent but does not significantly enhance behavioral transparency beyond the 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the resource type and the link to submissions, which suffices for an agent to understand and use the tool.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema; it only provides context that the returned id is used for submissions.
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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'venue groups (conferences, workshops)', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_venue (singular) and list_submissions. It also explains the purpose of the returned id for querying submissions.
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 by mentioning the returned group id for submissions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_venue or list_submissions. It provides a workflow hint but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.