Author
authorAuthor record by INSPIRE id.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
authorAuthor record by INSPIRE id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "record_id": 1001234
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Single author record from INSPIRE-HEP",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that record_id is an INSPIRE ID but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or response format.
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 compact and front-loaded, conveying the core function in a single short phrase without any unnecessary words.
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?
The description is minimal and lacks context about when to use this tool over authors_search, nor does it mention expected output or limitations. Even though an output schema exists, the absence of usage guidance leaves the description incomplete for an agent.
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 schema provides no description for record_id, only its type and requirement. The description clarifies that the ID is an INSPIRE ID, which is crucial for correct usage. However, no further semantic details are provided.
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 'Author record by INSPIRE id' clearly indicates the tool retrieves an author record identified by an INSPIRE ID. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', the intent is unambiguous and sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling search tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like authors_search. The description does not mention whether it is for exact ID lookups or how it compares to searching by name.
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.