Paper Search MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct by targeting specific databases or actions (search, download, status). However, search_scihub and download_paper have overlapping download capabilities, and get_citations vs search_semantic_scholar both involve citations, creating slight ambiguity. Descriptions mostly help, but a few boundary issues remain.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_arxiv, get_paper_by_doi, check_scihub_mirrors). Verbs are descriptive and match actions, and the style is uniformly lowercase with underscores. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the server is on the higher end but justified by the need to support many distinct academic sources. Each search tool serves a specific database, avoiding redundancy. The count feels slightly heavy but appropriate for the comprehensive scope.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle of paper discovery and retrieval: searching across multiple sources, downloading, fetching by DOI, and getting citations. Missing advanced features like reference management or batch operations, but these are auxiliary. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for listing references, but the overall coverage is solid.
Average 3.1/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 44 times in the last 30 days.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 states the tool checks health status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'health status' entails (e.g., uptime, response time), whether it's cached or real-time, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Check the health status of all Sci-Hub mirror sites.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., a list of mirrors with statuses), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely outputs structured data, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'forceCheck' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it mentions no parameters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the health status of all Sci-Hub mirror sites.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('Sci-Hub mirror sites'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on searching or downloading papers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_platform_status,' which might be a related sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with siblings like 'get_platform_status' or 'search_scihub,' leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This lack of explicit context reduces its helpfulness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Download PDF file') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires authentication, potential rate limits, file size considerations, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the paper isn't found). For a download operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of downloading files across multiple platforms and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error handling, return values (e.g., success confirmation or file path), or platform-specific behaviors, which are crucial for a tool with 3 parameters and varied platforms.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they're needed for downloading. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Download') and resource ('PDF file of an academic paper'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper_by_doi' or 'search_arxiv', which might also retrieve papers but perhaps in different formats or contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for searching and retrieving papers, it's unclear if this is the primary download method or if others like 'get_paper_by_doi' serve similar purposes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'available platforms' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: 'Retrieve paper information using DOI from available platforms.' It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or usage context, but it's not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'paper information' includes (e.g., metadata, abstract, citations), how results are returned, or any limitations (e.g., platform availability). For a retrieval tool with multiple sibling alternatives, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (doi and platform) with descriptions and an enum for platform. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'available platforms,' which loosely relates to the platform parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve paper information using DOI from available platforms.' It specifies the action (retrieve), resource (paper information), and key input (DOI). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_crossref' or 'search_semantic_scholar' that might also retrieve paper information, though the DOI focus provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it implies use when you have a DOI and want paper information from platforms. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_crossref' for DOI-based searches or 'search_arxiv' for arXiv-specific queries), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit context reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'status and capabilities' includes (uptime, rate limits, authentication requirements, available features). The description mentions capabilities but doesn't detail what information is returned or any behavioral constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status and capabilities' means in practice, what format the information is returned in, or how this differs from the many search-focused sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the schema already fully documents the 'validate' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status and capabilities of available academic platforms'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools that focus on searching or downloading content rather than platform status checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on searching specific databases, there's no indication whether this should be used before attempting searches, when troubleshooting, or as a general health check. The lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description provides no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, error conditions, or what happens when no results are found. This is a significant gap for a search tool with many parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - it clearly communicates the core function without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how results are structured, whether there are limitations or constraints, or how this tool differs from the many other search tools available. The context demands more guidance than what's provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('academic papers from arXiv preprint server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling search tools (like search_biorxiv, search_pubmed, etc.) beyond mentioning arXiv specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many alternative search tools available on the server. There's no mention of when arXiv search is preferable to other academic databases or what makes this tool distinct from its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 API is 'free' and has 'extensive coverage,' which adds some context about cost and scope, but it doesn't cover critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and key features (free API, extensive coverage). There's no wasted text, and it avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and high-level context but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a missed opportunity to add value beyond structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax or year format details). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 academic papers from Crossref database.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('academic papers'), and data source ('Crossref database'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'search_semantic_scholar' that might also search academic papers, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the API is 'free' and has 'extensive scholarly metadata coverage,' which hints at when to use it (e.g., for broad, cost-effective searches), but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_pubmed' or 'search_arxiv' from the sibling list. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'web scraping' without detailing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential risks (e.g., blocking). It lacks information on response format, error handling, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function and method. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp immediately without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how results are structured, which is critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The 'web scraping' hint is insufficient for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as query syntax examples or interactions between parameters like yearLow and yearHigh. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('search') and resource ('Google Scholar for academic papers'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed, which perform similar academic searches on different platforms, so it misses full distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_arxiv for physics papers or search_pubmed for medical literature. It mentions 'web scraping' but doesn't explain implications or exclusions, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., paper titles, abstracts, metadata), performance characteristics (e.g., speed implications of fetchDetails), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The phrase 'slower' in the schema hints at performance but isn't elaborated in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of papers with basic info), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., date ranges, sorting options). The lack of output schema means the description should compensate by detailing return values, which it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, maxResults, fetchDetails) with their types and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('IACR ePrint Archive for cryptography papers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from general search tools by specifying the IACR ePrint Archive, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_arxiv that also search academic repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_google_scholar), there's no indication that this is specifically for cryptography papers from IACR, nor any context about when it might be preferred over other search options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of having 18 sibling tools (many of which are similar search tools) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't help the agent navigate the crowded tool ecosystem or understand medRxiv's specific value proposition versus other repositories. For a search tool among many alternatives, more contextual guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%), and the description doesn't compensate with additional context about how parameters interact or search behavior nuances.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('medRxiv preprint server for medical papers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (like search_arxiv, search_biorxiv, search_pubmed, etc.), which all search different repositories. A perfect score would require distinguishing this specific medRxiv search from other similar search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus its many sibling search tools. With 18 sibling tools including multiple search tools for different repositories (medRxiv, arXiv, bioRxiv, PubMed, etc.), the agent receives no help in choosing between them. There's no mention of medRxiv's specific focus (medical preprints) versus other databases' scopes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'searches' papers, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields returned). For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be slightly more informative given the tool's complexity. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (12 parameters, many siblings, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship with sibling tools, output format, or behavioral constraints. For a multi-platform search tool with extensive parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a multi-source search capability, which relates to the 'platform' parameter. It doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or parameter interactions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 academic papers from multiple sources including arXiv, Web of Science, etc.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'), and mentions the multi-source capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_crossref, which are more specialized versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., search_arxiv, search_crossref). It mentions 'multiple sources' but doesn't clarify if this is a unified search across all platforms or how it differs from using individual platform-specific tools. The only usage hint is in the input schema's platform parameter description, which notes 'Wiley only supports PDF download by DOI, use download_paper instead,' but this isn't in the main description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the NCBI E-utilities API but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading more context about when to use this specific PubMed search versus other search tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (abstracts, citations, full metadata?), doesn't mention rate limits or API constraints, and provides no guidance on usage context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches biomedical literature from PubMed/MEDLINE using NCBI E-utilities API, providing a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('biomedical literature from PubMed/MEDLINE database'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_medrxiv or search_biorxiv that also search biomedical literature, missing sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available for searching different databases (e.g., search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, search_scopus), there's no indication of when PubMed-specific searching is preferred or what makes this tool distinct from general search tools like search_papers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API key requirement, but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., metadata, abstracts, full text availability), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication scope, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key requirement. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main functionality, though it could potentially be more structured with separate usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of results are returned, how they're formatted, whether there's pagination, or any limitations. The API key mention is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from the Elsevier ScienceDirect database, which is a specific verb (search) and resource (academic papers from ScienceDirect). It distinguishes from siblings like search_arxiv or search_pubmed by specifying the database source, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar search tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'requires API key' which provides some context about prerequisites, but it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_scopus or search_semantic_scholar. No explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API key requirement but doesn't describe what the search returns (abstracts, citations, metadata), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication scope, or error conditions. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral aspects unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key prerequisite without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 9-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results to expect (format, fields, limitations), how results are ordered, whether there's pagination, or how to interpret the various filters. The API key mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing additional about parameter usage or interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('Scopus abstract and citation database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings by specifying the Scopus database, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other academic search tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed beyond the database name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools available. It mentions the requirement for an Elsevier API key, which is a prerequisite but doesn't help the agent choose between Scopus and alternatives like Google Scholar, PubMed, or other databases for different search scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The mention of 'citation data' hints at what's returned but doesn't provide operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how citation data is presented, or how this tool differs from the many other search tools available. The lack of behavioral context and usage guidance leaves significant gaps for an AI agent trying to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'citation data' which relates to output rather than input parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('Semantic Scholar for academic papers'), and specifies the type of data returned ('with citation data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed) beyond mentioning Semantic Scholar specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative search tools available on the server (search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_google_scholar, etc.). There's no mention of Semantic Scholar's specific strengths, coverage, or when it might be preferred over other academic search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool searches but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields returned). For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results look like, how they're structured, or any behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors. For a tool interacting with an external academic database, more context about output format and operational constraints is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., query, maxResults, year, author, journal, sortBy, sortOrder). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('academic papers from Web of Science database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_scopus or search_semantic_scholar, which serve similar purposes for different databases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for searching different academic databases (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_scopus), the description offers no context on Web of Science's specific coverage, strengths, or when it might be preferred over other search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action 'search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of papers, metadata), any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the domain (bioRxiv, biology papers) but lacks details on return values, behavioral traits, or usage context, which are important for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., query string, maxResults range, days default, category examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'bioRxiv preprint server for biology papers', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_medrxiv' or 'search_papers', which might have overlapping domains or purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_medrxiv' (for medical preprints) or 'search_pubmed' (for published papers). It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic mirror detection and PDF download capability. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if download fails, leaving gaps for a mutation-capable tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Search and download papers from Sci-Hub') and adds useful context ('Automatically detects and uses the fastest available mirror') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a tool with 3 parameters and mutation capability (download). It covers the purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on return values, error cases, or advanced usage, which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool handles both DOI and URL formats, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Search and download papers') and resource ('from Sci-Hub'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed by specifying the Sci-Hub source. It includes the unique capability of automatic mirror detection, which further differentiates it from generic search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for searching Sci-Hub with DOI or URL inputs. It implicitly suggests alternatives like sibling tools for other sources (e.g., search_arxiv for arXiv), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the same API key works for both API modes, which is useful behavioral context about authentication. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the response format looks like, leaving significant gaps for a search tool with 8 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral context about API modes and authentication. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and API behavior. However, it lacks details about response format, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the openAccess parameter's effect on API selection, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches academic papers from Springer Nature database, specifying both the action (search) and resource (academic papers). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the Springer Nature database specifically, unlike other search tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed that target different sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use different API modes (Metadata API vs OpenAccess API based on openAccess parameter), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling search tools like search_google_scholar or search_scopus, missing explicit alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It confirms it is a read operation (no side effects), but it does not disclose caching behavior, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of Semantic Scholar implies an external dependency but no caveats. This is a modest gap given the simple nature of the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the input method and source. No wasted words, length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies what data is returned and that input is a DOI. The forceRefresh parameter is explained in the schema, and the description implies a single-paper lookup. Missing details like potential errors or rate limits are minor for this scope, making the description complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (doi, forceRefresh) already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the DOI is for the paper and that data comes from Semantic Scholar. Since the schema fully covers parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (retrieve citation data), the specific resource (a paper by DOI), and the data fields returned (citation count, references, venue). It also names the external service (Semantic Scholar), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_paper_by_doi that likely return different metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use it: when you have a DOI and need citation metrics. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the phrase 'citation data' differentiates it from general paper lookups. No exclusions are given, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![paper-search-mcp-nodejs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Dianel555/paper-search-mcp-nodejs/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Dianel555/paper-search-mcp-nodejs)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![paper-search-mcp-nodejs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Dianel555/paper-search-mcp-nodejs/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Dianel555/paper-search-mcp-nodejs)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Dianel555/paper-search-mcp-nodejs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server