search_preprintsOSF: search public preprints by title (Open Science Framework, by the Center for Open Science). Returns id, title, description, publication date, DOI, and tags. Keyless public data; the API can be slow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 15, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Title search text, e.g. "machine learning". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that the API can be slow, which is useful beyond annotations. No mention of errors or limits, but sufficient.
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?
Two sentences pack purpose, return fields, data source, auth note, and performance warning. No fluff, ideal length.
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?
No output schema, but description lists return fields and warns about slowness. Covers essential context for a simple search tool, though could mention pagination or errors.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.
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 searches public preprints by title on OSF, lists return fields, and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the unique data source.
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?
Mentions keyless public data and API slowness, providing context for when to use. Lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the niche source makes usage evident.
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.