recentMost recent publications across PLOS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | No | ||
| responseHeader | No | Response metadata from Solr |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "rows": 25
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "response": {
+ "properties": {
+ "docs": {
+ "description": "Array of article documents",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "author_display": {
+ "description": "List of authors",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Article DOI",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "journal": {
+ "description": "Journal name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "publication_date": {
+ "description": "Publication date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Article title",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "numFound": {
+ "description": "Total number of matching documents",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "start": {
+ "description": "Starting position of results",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "responseHeader": {
+ "description": "Response metadata from Solr",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the 'across PLOS' scope and recency ordering, but does not explain default result limits, pagination, or how 'recent' is defined. This modest addition merits a midpoint score.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool, and every word carries meaning.
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?
With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description does not need to explain return format, but it still omits key invocation details such as the purpose of the 'rows' parameter and the definition of 'recent.' For a simple tool this is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 has one optional parameter 'rows' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain this parameter. The property name and example (25) provide minimal inferable meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 identifies the resource as PLOS publications and clearly implies a retrieval action ('Most recent publications'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like recent_alerts or recent_changes. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns,' which slightly weakens the purpose clarity.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search, search_authored_by, or recent_alerts. The phrase 'Most recent publications across PLOS' implies a use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.
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 overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in function, while compare_entities and entity_profile both fan out across data sources. The PLOS-specific tools (article, search, recent) are distinct, but the broader set creates confusion about which entry point to use for general data questions.
The naming is a mix of single-word nouns (article, recent), verb phrases (search_authored_by, validate_claim), and adjective_noun constructions (recent_changes, recent_alerts). While most multi-word names use snake_case, the lack of a consistent prefix or verb_pattern (e.g., some start with action verbs, others with data categories like polymarket_ or pipeworx_) makes the set feel inconsistent.
At 35 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a PLOS journal interface—only 4 tools (article, search, search_authored_by, recent) actually relate to PLOS. The remaining 31 tools form a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket data platform, which suggests the server is trying to do far more than its name implies.
For the stated domain (PLOS), the surface is thin: basic search, fetch, recent, and author search lack advanced features like citation metrics, journal browsing, or full-text download links. Conversely, the Pipeworx tools are extensive but unrelated to PLOS, so the set is simultaneously over-complete in unrelated areas and incomplete for its apparent purpose.