mendeley-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool looks up a paper by DOI and returns JSON metadata, but it doesn't mention potential behaviors like error handling (e.g., if DOI is invalid), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error cases or usage context, which are important for a lookup tool with no annotations. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'doi' parameter is 'The DOI of the paper' and provides an example ('10.1038/nature12373'), clarifying the format and purpose. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this compensates well, though it could be more detailed.

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 tool's purpose as 'Look up a paper by its DOI in the Mendeley catalog,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mendeley_get_document' or 'mendeley_search_catalog,' which might also retrieve paper information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by specifying it's for looking up papers by DOI, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mendeley_search_catalog' or 'mendeley_get_document.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.