[Developer Tools] Search Google Scholar for academic papers, citations, and research.
Args: query: Search query (e.g. 'CRISPR gene editing', 'reinforcement learning') max_results: Maximum results (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the read-only nature, such as rate limits, pagination, or result format. Minimal value added beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then two parameters explained. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Ideal length.
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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but is mostly complete for a straightforward query.
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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'query' with examples and notes the default for 'max_results'. This adds some semantics, but does not cover additional details like allowed query syntax or maximum value.
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?
Clearly states 'Search Google Scholar for academic papers, citations, and research' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like `developer-tools__search_arxiv` and `academic-research__search_google_scholar` by targeting Google Scholar.
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?
Provides example queries but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools include many search tools, and the description does not mention when to prefer this tool (e.g., for academic vs. general web search).
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.