Generate an academic citation for a document by its ID, rendered in BibTeX, APA, MLA, Chicago, IEEE, Harvard, or other formats. Retrieve formatted references for papers and sources.
Get an academic citation for a document in BibTeX, APA, MLA, or Chicago format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | Conceptio document ID | |
| format | No | Citation format to render (default: bibtex). | bibtex |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint false-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention whether the citation is derived locally or fetched externally (relevant given openWorldHint=true), nor what happens with missing metadata.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only inefficiency is the partial format enumeration, which consumes space while understating the actual enum.
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?
A simple read-only, two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The remaining gap is the untold story of the extra formats and of what happens when citation data is incomplete.
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 100% and the enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description does add the practical framing of which formats exist, but it lists only four of the eleven supported formats, which could mislead an agent into assuming those are the only options.
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 ('Get') and resource ('academic citation') tied to a document, and names the output formats. It is distinguishable from siblings like conceptio_get_document or conceptio_search by the citation-rendering angle, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as conceptio_get_document when metadata rather than a formatted citation is wanted. Usage is only inferable from the name and the doc_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.