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. It discloses the scale ('100M+ papers') and return format ('JSON array of catalog entries'), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter documentation, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, usage guidance, and parameter semantics, though behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: explaining 'query' as a 'Search query' and providing default/maximum values for 'limit' (default: 20, max: 100). This goes beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain query syntax or format.

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 specific action ('Search the global Mendeley catalog') and resource ('100M+ papers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mendeley_search_library' which searches the user's personal library. The phrase 'global Mendeley catalog' versus 'your library' provides clear 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find papers that may not be in your library.' This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'mendeley_search_library' for searching personal collections.

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