get_itemGet a single ScienceBase catalog item by id — full summary, categories, types, dates, contacts, web links, and attached files (download URLs). e.g. id "58f8be37e4b0b7ea5452260e". Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A ScienceBase item id, e.g. "58f8be37e4b0b7ea5452260e" (from search_items results). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the return payload (full summary, categories, etc.), which is not in annotations. No contradictions.
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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a compressed list of return fields. Highly efficient.
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?
Given the single required parameter, no output schema, and detailed listing of return fields in the description, the tool is fully specified for its simplicity. No 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with 'id' description already clear. The description adds an example id value and source hint ('from search_items results'), which is useful but marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get a single ScienceBase catalog item by id' and enumerates the specific data returned (summary, categories, types, dates, contacts, web links, attached files), distinguishing it from siblings like search_items (which searches) and item_children (which retrieves children).
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 includes 'Keyless' hinting at no authentication, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., if multiple items are needed, use search_items instead. The use case is implied but not fully defined.
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.
Most tools have distinctly described purposes, but there is some overlap among query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim, which could cause confusion for an agent.
Tool names are consistently snake_case but vary in pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), while others are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or longer phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence), making the naming system inconsistent.
With 33 tools, the server feels over-scoped. Many tools are niche (e.g., polymarket-specific ones) and the high number exceeds the typical range for a focused server, leading to potential overwhelm.
The server covers a broad range of query and monitoring tasks for its domains, but lacks write operations (except memory tools). There are notable gaps like no tool for creating or editing ScienceBase items, which seems incomplete given the server's name.