get_noteSingle note — paper, review, comment, decision, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | OpenReview note id (e.g. "abc123XYZ") | |
| details | No | Comma-sep extras: replies, original, revisions, edges |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Array containing the requested note and optional details |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "abc123XYZ"
+ },
+ {
+ "details": "replies,revisions",
+ "id": "def456UVW"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "notes": {
+ "description": "Array containing the requested note and optional details",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "description": "Note content fields",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "edges": {
+ "description": "Related edges if details include 'edges'",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "forum": {
+ "description": "Forum (paper) id if applicable",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Note identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "original": {
+ "description": "Original note if details include 'original'",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replies": {
+ "description": "Child notes if details include 'replies'",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "replyto": {
+ "description": "Parent note id if this is a reply",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "revisions": {
+ "description": "Prior versions if details include 'revisions'",
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It correctly implies a read operation but does not disclose return format or pagination.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words, though could be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose.
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 output schema exists, the simple parameter set (2 params,1 required), and clear annotations, the description is complete enough for basic usage. No notable 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add new information about parameters. The schema already documents id and details sufficiently, so 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?
Description clearly states 'Single note — paper, review, comment, decision, etc.' which specifies the resource (note) and its scope (various types). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_notes and list_submissions.
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?
Implied usage: use this tool to get a single note by ID. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided, but the purpose is straightforward given the tool name and input schema.
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.
The tool set includes both OpenReview-specific tools (e.g., get_paper, list_submissions) and a large number of unrelated tools for Pipeworx, Polymarket, and SEC filings. While individual descriptions are clear, the mix of domains creates confusion about which tools to use for a given task, leading to potential misselection.
Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some use underscore_case (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), some are verb_noun (get_paper, list_venues), and others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage). The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the tool set feel disjointed.
With 37 tools, the count is too high for a server supposedly focused on OpenReview. Only about 6 tools are directly related to OpenReview; the rest are for unrelated domains like prediction markets, data retrieval, and memory management. The scope is unclear and overloaded.
For the OpenReview domain, the tool set covers basic retrieval (get_paper, search_notes, list_submissions) but lacks operations like creating or updating notes, which are common in a review platform. The inclusion of many non-OpenReview tools does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the surface incomplete for its stated purpose.