Resolve a DOI, arXiv ID, or title from an attached handoff to its BibTeX key so you can cite records when the citation key is unknown.
Resolve a DOI/arXiv id/title from the attached handoff to its BibTeX key. Use this before citing a record whose key you do not know.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| identifier | Yes | DOI, arXiv id, title, or key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. 'Resolve' implies a lookup that returns a BibTeX key, but the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, failure handling, ambiguity behavior, or whether any state changes occur.
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?
Two tightly written sentences, with the core action stated first and the usage condition second. There is no filler.
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?
The description identifies the return value as a BibTeX key and gives a clear use case, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it leaves the 'name' parameter unexplained and does not describe what happens when resolution fails or is ambiguous.
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 only 50%, and the description mostly repeats the identifier examples already present in the schema. It does not explain the undocumented 'name' parameter and omits that 'key' is also accepted by the schema description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a DOI/arXiv id/title ... to its BibTeX key.' That is clearly a citation-key lookup rather than a generic paper operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as paper_bib_check or paper_bib_init.
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?
It states a clear usage condition: 'Use this before citing a record whose key you do not know.' That is strong positive guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool for related cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.