get_paper_reviews
Retrieve all peer reviews for a paper by providing its unique ID.
Instructions
Get all reviews for a specific paper
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paperId | Yes | ID of paper to get reviews for |
Retrieve all peer reviews for a paper by providing its unique ID.
Get all reviews for a specific paper
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paperId | Yes | ID of paper to get reviews for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as mutability, side effects, or return format; minimal transparency for a read operation.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and concise, but could include more detail without losing brevity.
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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but does not specify return values or constraints.
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% for the single parameter 'paperId', and the description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema; baseline score is appropriate.
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 the resource 'all reviews for a specific paper', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_reviews' which may be broader.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_reviews' or 'get_reviewer_details'; lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AI-Archive-io/MCP-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server