nobleblocks-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by explaining what the generated URL is (ARK when confirmed, otherwise DOI) and the deliberate policy of omitting unreliable DOIs rather than guessing. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it does not address any failure modes for the identifier lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and supported formats in the first sentence, then the URL caveat. No filler, though the second sentence addresses output detail that borders on schema/output-schema territory.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described. The description is complete for a single-resource formatter: it names the formats, the identifier source, and the URL construction policy. Only explicit routing versus siblings is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (format enum, identifier) are already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the format list and points back to get_paper's identifier syntax, adding only marginal value over the structured data. 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 (format) and resource (a citation for one paper) plus the three supported output formats. This is clearly distinguishable from get_paper (metadata retrieval) and search_papers without opening any schema.

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 implied: call this when you need a formatted citation for a single known paper. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools, though the reference to 'the same identifiers as get_paper' hints at the relationship.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the field inventory (including the conditional ARK behavior 'when the paper has a confirmed NobleID'), but says nothing about failure modes such as an unresolved identifier.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the field list. No wasted sentences, though the enumerated field list is somewhat dense for one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the one parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which keeps it off a 5.

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 identifier schema itself documents all five accepted formats (NobleBlocks id, DOI, ARK, OpenAlex W-id, pmid:), so the description needn't compensate. Baseline 3 is the right ceiling here.

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+resource ('Get full metadata for one paper') and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from search_papers. It does not name or contrast with the siblings get_citation/search_papers explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_papers or get_citation, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., that search_papers is how you obtain the NobleBlocks id). Usage is only implied by 'one paper'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing what a result contains (title, authors, year, journal, DOI, citation count, abstract excerpt, link), though it omits rate limits or ranking caveats.

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 paragraphs with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the follow-up routing comes second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing. The return-field list is arguably redundant against the output schema, but it is accurate and helpful rather than harmful.

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 query syntax, limit bounds and the year range filters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes `limit` ('up to `limit` papers') and adds no semantics beyond it, so the 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 ('Search the NobleBlocks paper index by keyword relevance'), and the sibling tools are named with distinct roles. An agent can distinguish this from get_paper and get_citation without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_paper with a result's `id` for full metadata, or get_citation to cite it. This gives clear context for the follow-up path, though it never states when not to search (e.g. when the user already has a DOI).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.