searchExpanded search (Solr-style query) across the ORCID Registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | 1-1000 (default 25) | |
| query | Yes | e.g. "family-name:Lovelace AND given-names:Ada" | |
| start | No | 0-based offset |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "family-name:Lovelace AND given-names:Ada"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "email:researcher@example.org",
+ "rows": 50,
+ "start": 0
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Search results from ORCID Registry",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'Solr-style query' syntax, which is not present in the annotations and informs how the query parameter should be structured.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key differentiator. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 presence of a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and strong annotations, the description is appropriately scoped. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema already defines 'start' and 'rows', so this is not a critical omission. The Solr-style query hint is sufficient contextual detail.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by labeling the query as 'Solr-style', which clarifies the query syntax format beyond the schema examples. This gives agents additional guidance on constructing valid queries.
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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('ORCID Registry'), and the phrase 'Expanded search (Solr-style query)' clearly indicates a broader search capability with a particular query syntax. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_within'.
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 implies this tool is for expanded searches across the entire ORCID Registry, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_within' or 'compare_entities'. No alternative tools are named.
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.