Get paper citations and metadata via Crossref. Look up by DOI or search by topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query for papers | |
| doi | No | Specific DOI to look up (e.g. "10.1038/nature12373") | |
| type | No | Filter by type: journal-article, book-chapter, proceedings-article | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20, default 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning any limitations, auth needs, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a read operation that queries an external service.
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 highly concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the key purpose. Every word is necessary.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality but omits details like return format, pagination, or usage limits. It is adequate for a simple lookup tool but could be more complete.
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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mapping 'DOI' and 'topic' to the doi and q parameters, but does not clarify parameter usage further.
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 it retrieves paper citations and metadata via Crossref, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools search_arxiv and search_pubmed which target specific repositories.
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 guidance on how to use the tool: by DOI or searching by topic. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when sibling tools would be more appropriate, so it lacks when-not guidance.
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 database or function (citations, arXiv, PubMed). However, get_citations can also search by topic, which might overlap with search_arxiv or search_pubmed in intent, though results differ.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: get_citations, search_arxiv, search_pubmed.
Three tools is a minimal but reasonable set for an academic search server. It covers major repositories and citation lookup, but leaves room for more specialized searches.
The server covers arXiv, PubMed, and Crossref citations, but lacks other major databases (e.g., Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore) and full-text retrieval, which are notable gaps for a comprehensive academic search tool.