box_get_fileGet full metadata for a single Box (cloud storage) file by its file id. Returns id, name, size, description, created and modified times, parent folder name, shared link URL, and file extension. Use after listing or searching to inspect one document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | The Box file id of the file to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "file_id": "987654321"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by enumerating the exact return fields (id, name, size, description, timestamps, parent folder, shared link URL, extension), which helps the agent anticipate the tool's output without needing an output schema.
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 compact: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, then list return fields and usage context. There is no fluff or redundancy, every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations and a complete schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what output to expect, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to make a correct invocation.
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 description for file_id ('The Box file id of the file to inspect') is clear and complete, achieving 100% coverage. The main description adds only a slight clarification that the file is a single Box file. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description provides minimal additional semantic value, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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's function: 'Get full metadata for a single Box (cloud storage) file by its file id.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like box_get_file_text (content extraction) and box_list_folder (multiple files). The scope is explicitly limited to a single file via ID.
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?
It provides explicit usage context: 'Use after listing or searching to inspect one document.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool without listing alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly name exclusions, the context (e.g., after listing/searching) and the sibling names make the differentiation clear.
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 distinct purposes, aided by detailed descriptions (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded). However, some overlap exists among Pipeworx-based tools (compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) that could cause confusion without careful reading.
Snake_case is used, but naming patterns are mixed: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others with nouns or prefixes (box_get_file, entity_profile). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
At 31 tools, the server covers an unusually broad set of domains (cloud storage, data queries, betting, memory, subscriptions). This is on the heavy side and could benefit from splitting into more focused servers.
Gaps exist: Box storage lacks create/update/delete, Polymarket tools offer analysis but no execution, and some data domains (e.g., weather) have only indirect coverage. The surface feels uneven across the wide scope.