get_citationLicense (the compilation is CC BY 4.0; each figure belongs to its cited source), the citation text, an HTML credit link and the download addresses. To cite a single number, cite its study: use get_reference.
| 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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the compilation is CC BY 4.0, that each figure belongs to its cited source, and that the tool returns citation text, an HTML credit link, and download addresses. It does not describe response structure or pagination, but for a simple read-only citation tool the added licensing nuance is meaningful.
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?
The description is two compact sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the license and returned artifacts, then ends with the sibling routing instruction, making it easy to scan.
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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the tool returns, the licensing nuance, and when to use get_reference instead. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose semantics the description needs to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on returned content instead.
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 states that the tool provides license information, citation text, an HTML credit link, and download addresses for the dyscalculia.io data. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_reference for citing a single number. An agent can identify the tool's purpose 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?
The description gives a clear alternative: to cite a single number, use get_reference. It implies this tool is for citing or reusing the compilation, licensing details, and download addresses, but it does not explicitly state a when-to-use sentence for this tool beyond the content list.
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.