search_atlasSearch the AIO Atlas — a trimmed proxy over the OpenAlex index of scholarly works on AI, its governance, and its societal effects. Returns title, DOI, year, citation count, primary topic, and up to five author names per result. Underlying OpenAlex data is CC0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text search query, at least 2 characters. | |
| perPage | No | Number of results, max 50. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns specific fields, notes the 'trimmed proxy' limitation, and states the CC0 license, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and scope, the second lists return fields, and the third notes licensing. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains zero filler.
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?
With a simple 2-parameter schema, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description wisely includes the return field list and licensing, making the tool sufficiently complete for an agent. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and exact search syntax, but these are inferable from the parameters and schema.
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?
Both parameters (query and perPage) have thorough descriptions in the schema covering types, constraints, and defaults, so the schema already provides full semantic coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as the AIO Atlas, a trimmed proxy over OpenAlex focused on AI, governance, and societal effects. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_paper or list_papers by emphasizing a search-oriented operation.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever a free-text search over scholarly AI works is needed—by specifying the index scope and return fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for retrieving a specific paper by ID, making the guidance implied rather than fully explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: fetching items vs. distributions, listing vs. fetching specific entities, and distinct submission endpoints for benchmark, eval, and RFC comments. Even the two 'get items' tools (bench vs. eval) are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and use cases.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are grouped by action type (get_, list_, submit_, start_, register_, verify_, search_), and the patterns are predictable and uniform across the set.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose. The breadth of the domain (papers, RFCs, standards packs, benchmarks, evaluation, certification, vocabulary, search) justifies the count, and no tool feels redundant.
The tool surface covers the major workflows: listing and fetching resources, starting and submitting evaluation attempts, registering and verifying certifications, and submitting benchmark/RFC responses. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to cancel an evaluation attempt or list a specific benchmark run by id, but these are edge cases and the core lifecycle is well-covered.