publishedPreprints that have since been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| server | Yes | ||
| date_or_range | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "date_or_range": "2023-06-01/2023-12-31",
+ "server": "biorxiv"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Published preprints response from bioRxiv/medRxiv API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool filters preprints by published status, but does not explain pagination (cursor) or other behaviors.
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?
Single sentence, concise but lacks structure. Does not front-load key information or organize content for quick scanning.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal and does not cover parameter usage or result context. Incomplete for effective tool usage.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter (cursor, server, date_or_range). The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or format.
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?
Description identifies the resource (published preprints) but lacks a verb specifying the action (e.g., search, list). It's a noun phrase, making the exact operation ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_within or details. No prerequisites or context provided.
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.
Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve querying/research, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap on company information. The bioRxiv-specific tools are distinct but are swamped by generic Pipeworx tools, making selection ambiguous.
Though all names are snake_case, there is no consistent verb-noun pattern. Some tools are verbs (remember, recall, forget), some are nouns (details, summary, publisher), and the ask_pipeworx family and meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions mix styles. The naming feels ad hoc rather than following a clear convention.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Biorxiv' — only 4-5 tools relate to bioRxiv directly, while the rest are general-purpose Pipeworx data and monitoring tools. This is a severe mismatch between server name and scope, bloating the tool surface unnecessarily.
For the stated bioRxiv purpose, the surface is incomplete: there is no search-by-topic, author, or abstract, and no way to retrieve full preprint text. The server compensates with many unrelated tools, but the core bioRxiv domain lacks basic coverage like searching preprints.