Retrieve canonical metadata for one paper ID, such as an arXiv, PMC, PMID, or DOI identifier. Returns the title, abstract, authors, categories, source IDs, and dates as markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paperId | Yes | Canonical paperId or primaryId such as `arxiv:1706.03762`, `pmcid:PMC12530322`, `pmid:40953549`, or `doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2025.108095`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape and markdown format, which signals a read-only retrieval, but it says nothing about failure modes (unknown/unresolvable IDs), external lookups, cost, or rate limits for a tool that clearly reaches out to source services.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the return-value sentence follows immediately. Nothing is repeated needlessly.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the accepted ID types and enumerates returned fields. The remaining gap is what happens on an invalid or unresolvable paper ID.
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% and the schema already lists the `arxiv:`/`pmcid:`/`pmid:`/`doi:` prefixed formats. The description only restates those identifier families, adding no format or normalization guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve canonical metadata for one paper ID') and enumerates the returned fields (title, abstract, authors, categories, source IDs, dates). It implicitly differentiates from firecrawl_research_read_paper by framing this as metadata rather than content retrieval, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the lookup to use when it already holds a canonical identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer firecrawl_research_read_paper or firecrawl_research_search_papers, nor any note on what to do when the ID format is unknown.
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.