Citation graph via Semantic Scholar.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"paperId": "<paperId>"
},
"name": "citation_graph"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paperId | Yes | ||
| direction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool that likely queries an external API, this is a significant gap.
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 very short (one phrase), which could be considered concise, but it lacks essential structure and detail. It does not front-load critical info or use formatting to aid readability.
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 lack of output schema and simple parameter set, the description should explain what the returned citation graph contains (e.g., list of papers, metadata). It does not, making it incomplete for the agent to understand the tool's output.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'paperId' and 'direction' are not defined anywhere, leaving the agent to guess their meaning (e.g., what values for 'direction', how to obtain a paperId).
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 'Citation graph via Semantic Scholar' indicates the tool retrieves a citation graph for a paper, but it does not specify what type of graph (e.g., citing papers, references, or both). This vagueness makes it less clear compared to sibling tools like 'paper_details' which have more specific names.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers' or 'paper_details'. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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.