search_preprintsDEPRECATED ALIAS for osf_search_preprints — identical behavior, kept for existing callers. New callers should use osf_search_preprints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 15, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Title search text, e.g. "machine learning". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "query": "machine learning"
- },
- {
- "limit": 30,
- "query": "neural networks"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "machine learning"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 30,
+ "query": "neural networks"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 5,
+ "query": "psychology replication"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "machine learning"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 30,
+ "query": "neural networks"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds deprecation status and equivalence to osf_search_preprints, but no details about result shape, pagination, or other execution traits. With the annotations carrying the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the deprecation status, and names the replacement without filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a deprecated alias with two fully documented parameters and comprehensive safety annotations, the description provides the key routing information: don't use this, use osf_search_preprints. It delegates behavior to the sibling rather than restating it, which is sufficient if the sibling description is available, but leaves the behavior opaque if read in isolation.
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 coverage is 100%: both query and limit have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 says it is a 'DEPRECATED ALIAS for osf_search_preprints' with 'identical behavior,' which tells the agent what the tool is relative to a sibling, not what it actually does. An agent must infer 'searches preprints' from the title or consult the sibling description. It does distinguish the tool from the canonical sibling, but the verb+resource behavior is not stated directly.
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?
It explicitly says 'New callers should use osf_search_preprints,' naming the exact alternative and the condition under which to avoid this alias. 'Kept for existing callers' defines the only intended audience. This is explicit routing guidance, not merely implied.
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.