community_recordsFetch paginated records belonging to a Zenodo community by its slug id (e.g. "openaire"). Returns record metadata, DOIs, and file links for all items in the community.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "covid-19",
+ "page": 1,
+ "size": 25
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Records in a Zenodo community",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'record metadata, DOIs, and file links' and mentions pagination via 'page' and 'size', which supplements the high annotation coverage.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the action and resource, then lists return contents. Highly concise.
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 an output schema (not shown but indicated by context), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the community scope, pagination, and what is returned (metadata, DOIs, file links). Complete for the tool's purpose.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description explains the 'id' parameter as a 'slug id' with an example, adding meaning. However, 'page' and 'size' are not described, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of 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 specifies the action 'Fetch paginated records' and the resource 'Zenodo community by its slug id', with an example. It distinguishes from siblings like 'record' and 'record_files' by focusing on community-level records.
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 the use case (fetching all records in a community) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'record' for a single record or 'record_files' for files. No exclusions are provided.
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.