scopus-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scopus_check_access

Read-only

Checks Scopus API access by testing each endpoint with seven live requests, bypassing cache and consuming quota. Run only when access is uncertain, not before every search.

Instructions

Test each Scopus endpoint independently using seven live requests. Uses API quota; bypasses cache. Never returns credentials. Run when access is uncertain, not before every search.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scopus_check_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`checked_at`	Yes
`rate_limits`	Yes
`capabilities`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds cost and side-effect information the annotations cannot express: it consumes API quota, bypasses the cache, and issues seven live requests. 'Never returns credentials' also reassures on a sensitive return surface. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, its cost, its side effects, and its trigger condition. Nothing is repeated and the quota warning is front-loaded before the usage advice.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key risks (quota, cache bypass, credentials). The only minor gap is that it does not say which seven endpoints are probed, though the output schema presumably enumerates per-endpoint results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs rather than restating the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'Test each Scopus endpoint independently using seven live requests.' That distinguishes it cleanly from every sibling, which are search/retrieval tools, and makes the diagnostic nature of the tool unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives both directions explicitly: 'Run when access is uncertain, not before every search.' This is a genuine when-to-use plus a concrete when-not-to-use exclusion, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid burning quota on a routine search.

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

Deploy Server