List the public research catalogue without a key. Compact by default; verbose=true adds ownership, endpoints and reviewed tools. Configured availability is not a live uptime guarantee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional legacy argument, ignored. No key is needed for this public catalogue. | |
| verbose | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional legacy argument, ignored. No key is needed for this public catalogue."Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing auth behavior (no key required), the compact-vs-verbose output distinction, and a caveat that configured availability is not a live uptime guarantee. That freshness/uptime caveat is genuinely useful behavioral context not present in the 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?
Two dense sentences with zero waste; the core action and no-key constraint are front-loaded, followed by the verbose behavior and the uptime caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description describes what compact vs verbose responses contain, plus the availability caveat. This is nearly sufficient, though it stops short of naming the catalogue's contents or an example entry.
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 coverage is 50% (verbose lacks a schema description), and the description compensates by explaining exactly what verbose=true adds: ownership, endpoints, and reviewed tools. Similarly it clarifies api_key is legacy/ignored, reinforcing the schema note rather than merely repeating it.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List the public research catalogue') and adds a differentiating scope note ('without a key'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_provider_tools or browse_public_information, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Gives implied context ('without a key') and a triggering condition for verbose mode, but never states when to choose this over sibling listing tools such as list_provider_tools or browse_public_information. Usage must be inferred.
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.