Paper Distill MCP Server

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 tool removes duplicates by DOI matching, implying a read-only or filtering operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies input data, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and method without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Remove papers'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (filtering operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output specifics. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should provide more context for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'papers' documented as 'List of paper dicts to filter'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'papers' but not elaborating on format or constraints. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter info, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('papers already pushed'), specifying the matching mechanism ('by DOI match against papers.jsonl'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_papers' or 'rank_papers' by focusing on filtering duplicates rather than searching or ranking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'pool_refresh' might also involve filtering), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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?

The description implies usage when you have papers to filter against an existing set, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_papers' for finding papers, 'rank_papers' for ordering). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.