List paper sources. Return the stable authenticated paper source registry, including arXiv search and MED-backed Europe PMC metadata, licensed text and citation operations.
List paper sources. Return the stable authenticated paper source registry, including arXiv search and MED-backed Europe PMC metadata, licensed text and citation operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.12Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits — the registry is 'stable' and 'authenticated' and covers licensed text/citation operations — which hints at an auth requirement and stable identifiers. It says nothing about return shape, pagination, or freshness, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the added context is reasonable.
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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and no filler. The second sentence is dense ('licensed text and citation operations') but still earns its place by enumerating the covered source classes.
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?
For a zero-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least frame how the returned registry is used and how it relates to research_search_papers. It names the content but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape and the next step, which is still usable but incomplete.
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 tool takes no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage on an empty schema), so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.
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?
States the resource (paper sources) and the verb (list/return), and names concrete backends (arXiv search, Europe PMC metadata). However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings such as research_search_papers, research_results, or research_inspect_paper, so an agent cannot tell what this registry is for versus those.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this returns a static source list rather than performing retrieval, which is exactly the ambiguity the sibling set makes costly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.