metadataResource metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Resource 4x4 ID | |
| name | No | Resource display name | |
| columns | No | Array of column definitions | |
| description | No | Resource description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "resource_id": "xj2p-gjci"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Resource metadata including columns, description, and properties",
+ "properties": {
+ "columns": {
+ "description": "Array of column definitions",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "dataTypeName": {
+ "description": "Data type of column",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Column description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Column ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Column name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Resource description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Resource 4x4 ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Resource display name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a generic noun phrase. It does not disclose what metadata is returned, any limitations, or additional side effects, though it does not contradict the annotations.
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 extremely short but under-specified; it is not a case of efficient minimalism because it lacks essential information. 'Resource metadata.' is a single phrase that fails to earn its place as a useful tool description.
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?
Even with helpful annotations and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what constitutes a resource, how to identify it, or what metadata is returned, making the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'Resource metadata.' without explaining the resource_id parameter or its expected format. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's name.
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 'Resource metadata.' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without a verb, making it tautological. It does not clearly state what action is performed (e.g., 'Retrieve metadata for a resource'), providing only vague reference to a resource.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its 30+ sibling tools. There is no mention of context, use cases, or alternatives, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.
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, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim have overlapping functionality in answering factual questions. The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, though some confusion may still arise.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity). No mixing of camelCase or other styles, making the naming predictable and uniform.
34 tools is on the higher side, but many are meta-tools (discover, feedback, subscriptions) and some are redundant (ask_pipeworx vs grounded). While the scope is broad, the count could be trimmed for tighter focus.
The server covers a wide range of domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, etc.) with strong read and analysis capabilities. Missing update/delete operations and direct trading, but comprehensive for data retrieval and analysis.