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 mentions the search scope ('searches title, authors, abstract, notes') and return format ('JSON array of matching documents with metadata'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'search' but not confirmed). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet-point-like sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' that are easy to parse. Each sentence adds value, such as detailing the search scope and parameter constraints, making it front-loaded and efficient for an AI agent.

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 with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, addressing key aspects. However, it lacks behavioral details like authentication needs or error cases, which would be beneficial for a tool with no annotations. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but some gaps remain.

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 'query' searches across multiple fields (title, authors, abstract, notes) and specifies defaults and limits for 'limit' (default: 20, max: 100). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear usage context for both parameters. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, the description effectively enhances parameter understanding.

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: 'Search your Mendeley library for documents.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('Mendeley library'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'mendeley_search_catalog' (which searches the public catalog) and 'mendeley_list_documents' (which lists without querying). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'mendeley_get_by_doi' or 'mendeley_get_document', which also retrieve documents but via specific identifiers.

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 through the phrase 'Search your Mendeley library for documents,' suggesting it's for finding documents based on content rather than by ID or listing all. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mendeley_search_catalog' (for public catalog) or 'mendeley_list_documents' (for unfiltered listing), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not detailed.

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