get_crossref_paper_by_doi
Get a specific paper from CrossRef by its DOI.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes |
Get a specific paper from CrossRef by its DOI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / doi / titleRemoved value: -"Doi"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_crossref_paper_by_doiArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_crossref_paper_by_doiOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose return format, error handling (e.g., invalid DOI), rate limits, or whether this makes external API calls. 'Get' is vague regarding whether it returns metadata, full text, or a download link.
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 single-sentence description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the essential action. However, extreme brevity contributes to the lack of necessary detail regarding siblings and parameters.
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 high sibling complexity (multiple CrossRef tools) and zero schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It should clarify distinctions from 'read_' and 'download_' variants and specify DOI format requirements.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by identifying the DOI parameter. However, it lacks format guidance (e.g., whether to include 'doi:' prefix, valid DOI patterns) or examples, leaving the agent to guess the expected input format.
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 verb (Get), resource (paper), source (CrossRef), and identifier method (DOI). However, it does not fully distinguish from siblings like 'read_crossref_paper' or 'download_crossref', leaving ambiguity about the specific retrieval behavior.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (e.g., search_crossref when lacking a DOI, read_crossref_paper, or download_crossref). The agent must infer usage solely from the name.
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.