list_papersEvery paper this server holds: its LCCN, the holding library for each run, first and last issue, issues and pages, issues per year, the years with NO issue held, and every stretch of more than 14 days with no issue held (a year can be held only in part). Use for questions about which papers and dates the archive holds, or to judge what an empty search means for a period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing exactly what is returned, including negative coverage information such as years with no issues and gaps longer than 14 days.
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?
It is front-loaded with the core purpose and one dense but efficient sentence enumerating returned fields. The field list is long and could be slightly easier to scan, but it earns its space by explaining output without an output schema.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: LCCN, holding libraries, issue ranges, pages, per-year counts, missing years, and gap periods. Combined with annotations, this is enough for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not waste space explaining inputs.
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 identifies the resource and scope: every paper the server holds, with a detailed inventory of holdings fields. It implies relevance for coverage questions but does not explicitly name sibling tools such as search_newspapers or newspaper_stats to differentiate itself.
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?
It provides clear usage context: questions about which papers and dates are held, or interpreting an empty search for a period. That helps distinguish it from search-like tools, but it does not state explicit exclusions or name alternatives.
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.