Skip to main content
Glama

Orcid

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Works

works
Read-onlyIdempotent

Works (publication) summaries with put-codes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orcid_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "orcid_id": "0000-0001-5109-3700"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Works (publication) summaries with put-codes",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'summaries' and includes 'put-codes', which is useful behavioral detail, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, or what constitutes a 'summary'.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, which is efficient, but it is under-specified to the point of being vague. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, providing minimal actionable information. This is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

While the tool has an output schema and strong annotations, the description itself is insufficient. It does not state that an ORCID iD is required, how the summaries are structured, or what 'put-codes' means in this context. The description alone would not allow an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'orcid_id' parameter at all. It only mentions 'works' and 'put-codes', leaving the parameter semantics entirely to inference from the parameter name. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource ('Works (publication)') and mentions 'put-codes', but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'. It vaguely suggests returning summaries of publications for a person, but does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'work' or 'record'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of required context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tool 'work' likely serves a similar purpose, but no differentiation is provided.

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

All Orcid toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ORCID-specific tools (record, search, works, work) are reasonably distinct, but the set is dominated by unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, several of which overlap heavily (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, creating genuine misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed with no consistent pattern: nouns like 'record', 'work', 'works', and 'education' sit alongside snake_case verb phrases like 'search_within', 'validate_claim', and 'generate_llms_txt', plus proprietary 'ask_pipeworx' / 'pipeworx_feedback' names. While readable, the styles are inconsistent enough that an agent cannot predict tool names from the domain.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far too many for a server scoped as 'Orcid': only roughly 7 tools (record, works, work, education, employment, search, search_within) actually relate to ORCID. The remaining ~30 tools cover prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, and generic Pipeworx/Polymarket functionality, which is a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness3/5

For read-only ORCID access, the surface covers full records, works, education, employment, and registry search, with semantic search over fetched records as a useful addition. However, it lacks other common ORCID activity types (funding, peer review, distinctions), profile metadata beyond summaries, and any create/update/delete lifecycle operations, leaving notable gaps for a server claiming to serve ORCID data.

Resources