record_filesList files attached to a Zenodo record by its numeric id. Returns file names, sizes, checksums, and direct download URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "1234567"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Files in a Zenodo record",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. Description adds value by specifying return content (file names, sizes, checksums, URLs), but doesn't disclose potential pagination or rate limits.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and lists return info. No wasted words.
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 tool listing files, the description covers purpose, required parameter, and return value. Output schema exists so return structure is documented. 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?
Schema has 0% coverage, but description explains that 'id' is a numeric identifier, compensating for the lack of schema documentation. Provides clear semantics beyond the schema type.
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?
Clearly states 'List files attached to a Zenodo record by its numeric id' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'record' and 'community_records' by focusing on file listing.
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?
Implies prerequisite of having a numeric record id but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives, which are clear from context but not directly stated.
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 tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap in the 'how should I query data' space. Additionally, the tool set mixes two unrelated domains (Zenodo and Pipeworx) without any organizing principle, forcing agents to guess which family applies.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but the semantic patterns are inconsistent: bare nouns for Zenodo tools (search, record, communities), product-prefixed names (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), generic verbs (remember, forget, recall), and verb_noun compounds (list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). The server is named Zenodo, yet most tools carry a pipeworx or polymarket prefix, making the naming feel arbitrary relative to the server's identity.
36 tools is excessive for a server whose stated identity is Zenodo; only 5 of the 36 tools actually relate to Zenodo, with the remaining 31 belonging to a separate Pipeworx data platform. This suggests a bundled or mislabeled server rather than a deliberately scoped tool surface, and even the Zenodo subset alone would be thin.
For the Zenodo domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: it covers search and read/retrieval (search, record, record_files, communities, community_records) but entirely omits the deposit workflow that is central to Zenodo — no create, update, delete, versioning, or file upload/download tools. The unrelated Pipeworx side is over-built, but the actual Zenodo use case leaves agents with dead ends.