cite_articleGet a formatted citation for a ADHD in Teens 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 establishes safety, and the description adds the scoping constraint that the tool only works for 'ADHD in Teens' articles. This is beyond the schema, which lacks this context. It also reinforces the read-only nature with 'Get'.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word contributes value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 read-only tool with two parameters, the description adequately conveys the purpose and style support. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the phrase 'formatted citation' is sufficient given the absence of an output schema. It could add error-case context, but this is not critical.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply restates the article slug and the style options already enumerated.
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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('a formatted citation for a ADHD in Teens article'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch article content or lists. It also mentions supported styles, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose implies a citation need, but no direct comparison or use-case context is provided.
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: fetching, listing, searching, citing, crisis resources, and site info. No overlap between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, using verbs like get, list, search, cite, and clear nouns. No mixed naming conventions.
6 tools is well-scoped for an article library server, covering core operations without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full read-only lifecycle: retrieve single, list all, search, cite, plus essential auxiliary info. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.