Verify a user-provided bibliography against scholarly sources and return match status, identifiers, and citation issues. Results may be cached for up to six hours and usage may be logged; the bibliography is not published or added to an account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Raw bibliography text (one reference per line, or a full references section) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: results may be cached for six hours, usage may be logged, and the input is not published or stored to an account. This complements the readOnly and idempotent hints without contradiction.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and efficiently covers important caveats about caching, logging, and privacy without unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output types, and behavioral caveats well. It lacks explicit return format details, but the overall context is sufficiently complete.
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 already fully documents the parameter 'text' with a clear description, so the tool description adds no additional semantic value for parameters. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verifies a user-provided bibliography against scholarly sources and returns match status, identifiers, and citation issues. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from siblings like format_citation and search_citations.
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 implies usage for verifying bibliographies but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are present but not referenced in the description.
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 targets a distinct action: searching, formatting, and verifying citations. There is no overlap in purpose, and an agent can easily select the right tool for a given task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (check_references, format_citation, search_citations), making them predictable and easy to remember.
Three tools is well within the typical 3-15 range and each tool serves a necessary function for the server's focused scope of citation handling. No redundancy or excessive count.
The tool set covers the primary workflows of searching, formatting, and verifying references. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool for retrieving a single citation by identifier, but search_citations can cover that need.
