search_google_scholar
Search academic papers from Google Scholar.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Search academic papers from Google Scholar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / max_results / titleRemoved value: -"Max Results"Input schema / properties / max_results / typePrevious value: -"integer"New value: +"number"Input schema / properties / query / titleRemoved value: -"Query"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"search_google_scholarArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "search_google_scholarOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but reveals nothing about rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or whether this is a real-time vs cached search.
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 is front-loaded and wastes no words, but given the lack of annotations and schema coverage, the description is undersized rather than appropriately concise.
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?
With no output schema, zero annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description inadequately covers the tool's behavior. It omits expected return structure, error handling, and parameter details necessary for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It fails to do so, providing no guidance on query syntax (Boolean operators, author search, etc.) or max_results constraints despite having only two parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies both the resource type ('academic papers') and the specific source ('Google Scholar'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed.
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 prefer Google Scholar over the 15+ sibling academic search/download tools available on this server (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed). No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.