get_referenceFull bibliographic record for one academic reference (by id), including the complete abstract (present for ~51% of references), subjects, DOI/URL, and host-work details (book, volume, issue, pages).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / reference_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / reference_id / minimumRemoved value: --9007199254740991Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / reference_id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / reference_id / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the abstract is only present for ~51% of references, setting expectations on missing data, plus the set of host-work fields returned.
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 that leads with the verb and resource, then packs field-level detail with zero filler.
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, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (abstract, subjects, DOI/URL, host-work details) and flagging the abstract's sparse availability. Safety is covered by annotations, leaving little an agent would need that isn't present.
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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. 'by id' signals that reference_id is an identifier, but adds no format, source, or validity detail beyond the schema's integer type.
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 ('Full bibliographic record for one academic reference') scoped clearly by id, and enumerates the returned fields, which lets an agent separate it from list/search tools. It does not explicitly name the sibling search_references, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 'one academic reference (by id)' scoping implies you call this once you already have an id, typically from search_references, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is only inferable.
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.