metadata"Get paper info for [DOI]" / "bibliographic details for [paper]" / "title / authors / year of [DOI]" — bibliographic metadata for one or more DOIs (up to 50 at once). Returns title, authors, year, journal, publisher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dois | Yes | 1-50 DOIs. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Bibliographic metadata for requested DOIs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the batch limit of up to 50 DOIs and explicitly lists the returned fields, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 front-loaded with the core action and key constraints, but includes redundant paraphrases such as 'Get paper info for [DOI]' and 'bibliographic details for [paper]' before the substantive sentence. It is concise overall but not maximally efficient.
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 simple one-parameter tool, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description effectively provides all necessary context: it states the input (DOIs with batch limit) and the output fields. No significant behavioral or contextual gaps remain.
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 input schema fully describes the 'dois' parameter as '1-50 DOIs', and the description repeats the limit without adding new format or syntax details. With 100% schema coverage, the description offers no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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 the tool retrieves bibliographic metadata for DOIs, using specific verbs like 'Get' and listing return fields (title, authors, year, journal, publisher). This distinguishes it from citation-count or reference tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied: when an agent needs paper metadata for DOIs, this tool is appropriate. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like citations or references, so guidance remains implicit.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical router variants, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/ai_visibility_check all inspect companies from overlapping angles. The six Polymarket tools form a tightly-overlapping mini-domain that further crowds the surface.
All names are snake_case, but verbs are inconsistently used: many tools are noun phrases (citation_count, entity_profile, polymarket_edges) while others start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some prefixes like ask_* and polymarket_* help, but the overall verb/noun pattern is not coherent.
37 tools is well above the typical 3–15 tool scope, and several are redundant variants (three ask_pipeworx modes) or hyper-specific sub-tools (six Polymarket tools). The server name suggests a focused citation service, but only six tools actually address citations, leaving the set bloated with unrelated data query and memory utilities.
For a general data-query gateway, the surface is quite broad and covers lookup, profiling, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory. But as an OpenCitations server it lacks a way to discover papers by topic and the breadth of the other domains is unwieldy and unowned—so notable gaps exist in any plausible stated purpose.