Find papers that cite a given DOI to uncover relevant research you didn't know to search for. Bypass keyword limits and follow citation chains.
Papers that cite this one. The route to the paper you did not know to search for: a keyword sweep only returns what you already thought to ask.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of signaling safe behavior. It implies a read-only retrieval action by describing cited papers as a discovery routecompress, but it does not disclose limits, ordering, DOI resolution behavior, or missing-result handling. The output schema may cover return structure, but behavioral detail is thin.
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 definition is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a memorable usage rationale, 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?
The tool is a straightforward lookup with one required parameterchers, a default limit, and an output schema. The description gives enough context about purpose and use case. It does not enumerate sibling distinctions or edge cases, but for the tool's complexity this is nearly complete.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the doi or limit parameters. 'This one' implicitly refers to the DOI, but the parameter's format and purpose are left to inference, and the optional limit is not mentioned at all. The schema provides only names and a default, so this is a meaningful gap.
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 identifies the resource: papers that cite a given paper ('Papers that cite this one'), which is a specific forward-citation lookup. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns,' but the intended action is unambiguous and distinct from related tools like lit_references.
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 explains when this tool is valuable: when a keyword sweep cannot discover papers you did not already know to search for. This is practical guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.