Skip to main content
Glama

Openaire

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Software

search_software
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Find research software for [task]" / "academic / open-source tools for [field]" — search research software registrations in OpenAIRE. Use for finding citable scientific software tied to published research.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page (default 1)
sizeNoPage size, 1-100 (default 20)
queryYesFree-text query (matches title/abstract/keywords)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageYesCurrent page number (1-based)
countYesNumber of results in this response
queryYesThe search query that was executed
totalYesTotal number of matching software items
resultsYesArray of software objects
page_sizeYesNumber of results per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "bioinformatics alignment tool"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of results in this response",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "page": {
+      "description": "Current page number (1-based)",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "page_size": {
+      "description": "Number of results per page",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "description": "The search query that was executed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Array of software objects",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Total number of matching software items",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "query",
+    "total",
+    "page",
+    "page_size",
+    "count",
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the behavioral profile. The description adds that the source is OpenAIRE and that software is citable, which provides useful context but does not exceed the information already available.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, directly stating the purpose and usage. No redundant or unnecessary information; every sentence is valuable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description adequately frames the domain (OpenAIRE, citable scientific software). It could elaborate on result structure, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, sufficiently complete for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description provides an example query ('bioinformatics alignment tool') and briefly notes that query matches title/abstract/keywords, which is already in the schema. Thus, minimal additional semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it searches for research software in OpenAIRE, using verbs like 'find' and 'search'. It specifies the resource type (research software registrations) and distinguishes from sibling search tools that focus on datasets, projects, or publications.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use for finding citable scientific software tied to published research,' providing clear context. However, it does not compare with alternatives like search_datasets or search_publications, nor does it state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Openaire toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping or explicitly duplicate purposes: ask_pipeworx_beta is described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, while ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language queries to similar lookup pipelines. The Polymarket tools also blur together (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk), and scan_competitor_ai_presence is just a wrapper around ai_visibility_check.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are readable verb-led names like search_publications, get_project, resolve_entity, and validate_claim, but the set mixes conventions with noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, and pipeworx_trending. The lack of a single verb_noun pattern makes the surface feel inconsistent, though each family is internally recognizable.

Tool Count2/5

At 37 tools, this is well beyond the 25+ threshold where an agent starts paying significant selection and context cost. The broad domain could justify some breadth, but many tools are meta-wrappers or near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx_beta, compare_entities, entity_profile, deep_research) that inflate the count.

Completeness4/5

Within its main subdomains, the surface is fairly complete: OpenAIRE search has matching get_project/get_research_product retrieval, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and there are discovery/onboarding helpers like suggest_questions and discover_tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct generic Polymarket market quote tool, no memory update besides overwrite), but no major workflow is a dead end.

Resources