Retrieve paper details by DOI from arXiv, Web of Science, Sci-Hub, or all platforms. Specify the DOI and platform to get matching publication information.
Retrieve paper information using DOI from available platforms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | DOI (Digital Object Identifier) | |
| platform | No | Platform to search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Input schema / properties / platform / enumPrevious value: -[
- "arxiv",
- "webofscience",
- "all"
-]New value: +[
+ "arxiv",
+ "webofscience",
+ "scihub",
+ "all"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only lookup, but the behavior across platforms is not disclosed: whether it returns the first match, merges results, or what happens when the DOI is not found on a selected platform. No error handling, fallback, or aggregation behavior is described.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and input immediately, though 'available platforms' could be more explicit. It earns a high score for efficiency, but not top marks due to slight vagueness.
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?
This is a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more to orient the agent. It does not explain what information will be returned, how platform selection affects the lookup, or what distinguishes this from the many sibling search tools. The agent is left to guess expected behavior.
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%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description mentions DOI but adds no new semantic detail beyond the parameter descriptions, such as format expectations or how 'platform' affects results. Baseline 3 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 states a specific action ('Retrieve paper information') and the key identifier ('DOI'), which clearly distinguishes it from keyword-based sibling tools like search_papers or search_google_scholar. The phrase 'available platforms' is somewhat vague, but the core purpose is understandable.
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. It does not mention that this tool is appropriate when a DOI is already known, nor does it suggest sibling tools for keyword or title-based lookup. The agent must infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.