get_mapGet a single EMDB entry by its EMDB id (e.g. "EMD-1080"). Returns a trimmed record: title, sample, structure-determination method, resolution (Angstrom), and release date. EMDB holds 3D electron-microscopy density maps of proteins, complexes, and viruses. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | An EMDB id like "EMD-1080". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "EMD-1080"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields and the trimmed nature, which is beyond 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?
Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second details the return, and the third provides context about EMDB. Very 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?
For a simple retrieval tool with complete schema and annotations, the description covers everything needed: what it gets, how to specify the ID, and what is returned. 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?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described with format ('EMD-1080') and an example. Schema coverage is 100% and the description reinforces the expected input.
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 retrieves a single EMDB entry by ID, listing the exact fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_maps' which likely handles multi-entry queries.
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 an example ID and notes the tool is 'keyless', implying no auth needed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings but the purpose is unambiguous; a when-not statement would strengthen this.
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.
Multiple tool clusters have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (the beta is explicitly the same right now); five polymarket_* tools all surface opportunity/edge information; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all cover company research. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily misselect between similar tools.
All tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive, with clear prefix patterns for prediction-market tools (polymarket_*) and the router variants (ask_pipeworx_*). Some names are verb-noun while others are noun-phrases, but the convention is uniformly underscore-separated, with no camelCase or other mixing.
33 tools is excessive for a coherent server, and the scope is sprawled across EMDB access, Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and miscellaneous utilities. Even though each tool has a defined role, the sheer breadth and number make it feel like several servers' worth of functionality crammed into one.
The server's name suggests it should be focused on EMDB, but only two tools (get_map, search_maps) cover that domain — no browsing, filtering, or extended metadata beyond basic fields. Meanwhile, the bulk of the surface is devoted to unrelated Pipeworx/platform features. For the stated purpose, the coverage is severely incomplete.