locationsList EDMtrain-supported metro locations (id, city, state, lat/long). Use a location id with the events tool, or filter this list by a city/state keyword. EDMtrain covers North American metros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional filter, e.g. "Los Angeles", "TX", "Brooklyn". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Los Angeles"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "TX"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond scope (North American metros) and the fact it's a list. No contradiction, but little extra value.
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, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and every sentence is informative with no unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the return fields, explains usage with events, and defines scope. No gaps identified.
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 a good parameter description. The description reinforces that the query filters by city/state keyword, adding no new details beyond what the schema provides. 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 the tool lists EDMtrain-supported metro locations with specific fields (id, city, state, lat/long). It distinguishes from the sibling 'events' tool by mentioning using location id with it.
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 clear usage context: use this tool to get location IDs for the events tool, and optionally filter by city/state. It also specifies geographic coverage (North American metros). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Several tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with an extraction step, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve as 'what can I do here' entry points. The polymarket_* family is more distinct, but the ask_pipeworx/deep_research overlap alone makes tool selection genuinely ambiguous.
The vast majority of tools follow lowercase snake_case with recognizable domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), which is a decent pattern. However, there are bare-noun tools (events, locations, recall, forget) and mixed verb-first vs noun-first ordering (list_subscriptions vs entity_profile, scan_dependency vs polymarket_edges), so it is not perfectly uniform.
33 tools is well above the comfortable range and feels heavy even for a broad data-research platform. Many tools are narrow variations (five polymarket analysis tools, four ask_pipeworx variants, three memory tools) that could plausibly be consolidated or exposed as parameterized modes rather than separate top-level tools.
For the actual domain suggested by the tool names and descriptions—structured data research, entity profiling, claim verification, and prediction-market analysis—the surface is quite complete: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, comparisons, recent-change tracking, subscriptions, memory, and arbitrage/fill-risk analysis are all covered. However, relative to the server name 'Edmtrain', the event-discovery surface is extremely thin (only events and locations), which is a notable mismatch.