Skip to main content
Glama

Plos

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search

search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Solr-powered full-text search across all PLOS open-access journals; supports field-qualified queries (e.g. abstract:CRISPR AND title:gene), pagination, sorting, and custom field selection. Returns title, authors, journal, date, and abstract by default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flNoComma-sep fields to return.
rowsNo1-1000 (default 25)
sortNoe.g. "publication_date desc"
queryYese.g. "abstract:CRISPR AND title:gene"
startNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
responseNo
responseHeaderNoResponse metadata from Solr

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "abstract:CRISPR AND title:gene"
+  },
+  {
+    "query": "title:COVID-19 AND publication_date:[2023-01-01T00:00:00Z TO 2023-12-31T23:59:59Z]",
+    "rows": 50,
+    "sort": "publication_date desc"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "response": {
+      "properties": {
+        "docs": {
+          "description": "Array of article documents",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "abstract": {
+                "description": "Article abstract",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the Solr engine, field-qualified query syntax, default return fields, and support for pagination/sorting/custom fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by capabilities and defaults. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: scope, query syntax, available operations, and default fields. It could delve into edge cases like result limits or error handling, but it is largely sufficient for a search tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema descriptions cover 4 of 5 parameters (80%). The description reinforces parameter usage by giving a concrete example of a field-qualified query and mentioning pagination, sorting, and custom field selection, which map to start/rows, sort, and fl. It also notes the default return fields, helping clarify fl values. However, the 'start' parameter is not explicitly explained beyond 'pagination.'

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Solr-powered full-text search across all PLOS open-access journals,' which clearly specifies the action (search), the resource (PLOS journals), and the scope (all open-access). It also lists distinct capabilities (field-qualified queries, pagination, sorting, custom field selection), setting it apart from sibling tools like search_authored_by or search_within.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'across all PLOS open-access journals' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_within or search_authored_by, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

All Plos toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources