cite_articleGet a formatted citation for a ADHD in Children article. Supports AMA, APA, and Chicago styles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. | |
| format | No | Citation style (default ama). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / format / descriptionPrevious value: -"Citation format. Default: ama."New value: +"Citation style (default ama)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds the supported citation styles (AMA, APA, Chicago), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior or the exact format of the returned citation, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler content. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists supported styles, making it easy to scan. The minor grammatical issue ('a ADHD') does not impact clarity or efficiency.
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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description is largely complete. It states the tool's purpose and supported styles, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could ideally mention that the output is a citation string, but the description and schema together cover the essential information.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (slug and format), so the schema already documents all necessary details. The description's mention of AMA, APA, and Chicago styles adds no new information beyond the enum values. Thus, the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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's action ('Get a formatted citation') and the resource ('an ADHD in Children article'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article (which retrieves full content) and search_articles by focusing specifically on citation formatting. The meaning is unambiguous despite a minor grammatical error.
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 makes the context of use clear: when a formatted citation is needed, this is the tool to use. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose relative to sibling tools provides enough guidance for an agent to select it correctly. No prerequisites are mentioned, but none are apparent.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: citation, retrieval, crisis resources, site info, listing, and search. There is no overlapping functionality; an agent can easily select the appropriate tool for the task.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, get_crisis_resources, get_microsite_info). This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
With only 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a content library. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, keeping the surface area manageable for agents.
The set covers the full read-only lifecycle of the article library: listing, searching, fetching, and citing. Including crisis resources and site information rounds out the server's purpose without missing any obvious operations for the intended domain.