lookupExact-name lookup against the catalog (case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | e.g. "package.json" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Searched schema name (case-insensitive) | |
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "package.json"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "tsconfig"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Searched schema name (case-insensitive)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "oneOf": [
+ {
+ "description": "No match found",
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Schema description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "fileMatch": {
+ "description": "Glob patterns matching filenames",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Schema name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Schema URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "versions": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": "Schema versions mapping",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'exact-name' and 'case-insensitive', which go beyond annotations. However, it does not mention what happens if the name is not found or any limits, but this is partially mitigated by the output schema.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and structurally effective.
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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could clarify what 'the catalog' contains (e.g., schemas, entities) but is still largely sufficient for an agent.
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 the 'name' parameter described via an example. The description adds no new parameter details, but given high coverage, the baseline of 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 states 'Exact-name lookup against the catalog (case-insensitive),' clearly identifying the action and resource with specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_schema_for' or 'search_within', which could reduce clarity in selection.
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 alternatives such as 'search_within' or 'find_schema_for'. It implicitly suggests using it when the exact name is known, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or recommended alternatives.
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 occupy overlapping semantic space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are the same router in different modes, while suggest_questions and discover_tools both serve capability discovery. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong entry point, especially among the prediction-market and router variants.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (fetch_schema, resolve_entity, validate_claim), with some domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and a few adjective_noun outliers (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The convention is consistent and predictable, with only minor deviations.
At 35 tools, the set is far too large for a server named Schemastore — only four tools relate to the schema catalog while the rest form a sprawling data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform. The count is heavy and the scope feels unfocused.
The broad data-research and prediction-market domain is well covered — lookup, compare, validate, research, arbitrage, subscriptions, and memory all have lifecycle support — but the server's namesake purpose (schema catalog) is thinly served by four read-only tools with no way to contribute or manage schemas. The domain mismatch makes the surface feel both over- and under-complete.