communitiesList or search Zenodo communities (thematic collections of records) by optional keyword query; returns community id, title, description, and record count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "astronomy"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Communities list/search results from Zenodo API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and side-effects. The description adds value by specifying the return format (community id, title, description, record count). It does not contradict annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes return information. No superfluous 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema (reducing need to explain returns), and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could mention pagination behavior or defaults, but overall it satisfies the minimum requirements.
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 has three parameters (page, size, query) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only explains 'query' as an optional keyword, leaving 'page' and 'size' unexplained. The description does not compensate adequately for the missing schema descriptions.
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 lists or searches Zenodo communities with an optional keyword query, and specifies the returned fields (id, title, description, record count). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling 'community_records', which likely deals with records within a community.
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 usage for searching/listening communities via keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'community_records'. It offers no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tools.
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.