cite_articleGet a formatted citation for a Psychiatry for Kids 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it supports three citation styles, but this is also present in the schema enum. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or prerequisites, though the simple read-only nature makes this acceptable.
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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the readOnlyHint annotation, and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. The return type (a formatted citation string) is implied by 'formatted citation', and no output schema is needed for such a straightforward tool.
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% with descriptions for both slug and format, including the enum and default. The description's mention of AMA, APA, and Chicago duplicates schema info. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a formatted citation for a Psychiatry for Kids article', distinguishing it from siblings like get_article or list_articles. The specific output type and domain context make 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 implies when to use it: when a formatted citation is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so distinct that context is clear. No direct comparison with sibling tools, so not a 5.
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 a full article, listing articles, searching, citing, retrieving site info, and providing crisis resources. No two tools overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the correct one.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_article, list_articles, search_articles). The verbs and nouns are predictable, making the set easy to understand and navigate.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused article library. Each tool earns its place, covering core operations without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The set covers article retrieval, discovery (list/search), citation, site identity, and crisis resources. For a public-facing read-only library, this is a complete surface with no obvious gaps or dead ends.