get_projectOSF: fetch metadata for a single public research project (node) by its OSF id (e.g. "abc12"). Returns title, description, category, dates, tags, and public flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | OSF node id, e.g. "abc12". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds that the project is public and lists return fields, providing moderate additional context 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, target, and return values. 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and is sufficient for correct agent invocation.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter 'id' with description and example. The tool description adds an example format but does not significantly expand meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate due to 100% schema coverage.
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 it fetches metadata for a single public research project by OSF id, and lists specific returned fields (title, description, category, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling search_projects by focusing on a single project retrieval.
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 clearly implies usage when you have an OSF id and need project metadata. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_projects, but the context is clear.
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 near-identical or heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx and validate_claim both answer factual questions, and discover_tools and suggest_questions both surface capabilities. The dense set of Polymarket and entity-research tools further blurs boundaries despite long descriptions.
Names are consistently snake_case, but they do not follow a single predictable verb_noun pattern: actionable names like ask_pipeworx, search_projects, and compare_entities mix with noun-style names like polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, and recent_changes. The convention is readable but not uniform.
34 tools exceeds the reasonable scope for a coherent server, and many are near-duplicate variants or members of sprawling tool families (ask_pipeworx variants, multiple Polymarket scanners, several meta/discovery tools). The set would be stronger with consolidation around a smaller number of distinct capabilities.
If this server is meant to provide OSF access, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_projects, search_preprints, and get_project exist, with no create/update/delete, file handling, registration, or contributor access. If it is meant to be a broader Pipeworx assistant, the OSF tools are unrelated and the domain is so scattered that coverage is incoherent.