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 implies a read-only operation ('Show') and hints at the return structure, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It adds some behavioral context by specifying the return data fields, but doesn't fully disclose operational traits like potential latency or data freshness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details. It's efficient with two sentences, but the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing return keys clearly). Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 complexity (simple status check with 0 parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose and outlines return values, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to fully explain return values. However, it could benefit from more context on when to use it relative to siblings.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current pool status'), and it details what information is included (paper counts by status, scan day, topics searched). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pool_refresh' or 'rank_papers', which might also relate to pool operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'pool_refresh' and 'rank_papers' that might involve pool status updates or analysis, there's no indication of when this read-only status check is preferred over other pool-related operations.

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