corpus_list_authorsList all authors in the corpus with their document counts, and enable extended_only to return the detailed full list.
Authors in the corpus and their document counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extended_only | No | true = detailed version with the full list |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only implies a read operation by stating what it returns. It does not disclose read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral trait beyond the basic output.
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 a single concise sentence fragment with no wasted words, front-loading the resource. However, it is not a fully structured sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 many sibling tools and the lack of annotations or usage guidance, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the agent receives no guidance on when to select this tool over others, and no behavioral context is provided.
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 single parameter's description in the schema is complete (100% coverage), so the baseline score of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the extended_only parameter.
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 states the resource (authors) and the additional data returned (document counts), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like corpus_list_doc_types or corpus_list_series. However, it lacks an explicit verb and is a sentence fragment, so it is clear but not maximally strong.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as corpus_search or corpus_list_doc_types. The description provides no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.