mendeley-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format beyond 'JSON object with full document metadata'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 brief sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place 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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but with no annotations and minimal behavioral details, it falls short of fully guiding the agent, especially for usage decisions among siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'document_id: The Mendeley document ID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Document Id'. However, it doesn't provide format examples or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific document', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mendeley_get_by_doi' or 'mendeley_search_library', which might also retrieve document information through different mechanisms.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, nor does it compare with siblings such as 'mendeley_get_by_doi' for DOI-based retrieval or 'mendeley_search_library' for broader searches, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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