get_journalFull profile of one journal by ISSN: indexing, quartile, open-access status, scope and integrity signals (e.g. DOAJ withdrawal) for any caller. Trust score with breakdown, impact factor, APC and measured publication time require an identified caller. Use when the user asks about one journal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issn | Yes | The journal's ISSN, e.g. 1361-8415 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: data availability varies by caller identity (some fields require an identified caller), and it highlights integrity signals like DOAJ withdrawal. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool actually returns under different conditions.
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 sentences, each earning its place: scope and contents, access restrictions, and usage context. There is no redundancy or 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 no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating return categories (indexing, quartile, OA status, scope, integrity signals, trust score breakdown, IF, APC, publication time) and clarifies caller-dependent availability. It also provides usage context, making it complete for a single-journal profile tool.
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%, and the schema already explains the 'issn' parameter with an example. The description confirms ISSN is the lookup key but adds no additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 action ('Full profile of one journal by ISSN') and enumerates specific content areas (indexing, quartile, OA status, scope, integrity signals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the singular scope ('one journal') versus search/compare tools.
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?
Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks about one journal.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, though the singular/plural distinction implies the boundary.
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 has a clear, distinct purpose: citation verification vs. journal search vs. single-journal profile vs. side-by-side comparison. The journal-related tools are differentiated by search/detail/compare actions, and the descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_citations, compare_journals, get_journal, search_journals. The verbs (check, compare, get, search) are distinct and match the tool's action, with no mixed conventions.
Four tools is an appropriate scope for a scholarly publishing/citation domain. Each tool covers a distinct core need without redundancy or excessive granularity, and the count is well within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the key workflows: verifying references, finding journals, retrieving detailed journal profiles, and comparing journals side-by-side. While it is read-focused rather than CRUD-based, that matches the domain's purpose, and there are no obvious dead ends.