Retrieve citation evidence for a stored paper, choosing incoming or outgoing references to explore how it relates to other works.
Return incoming or outgoing citation evidence for a stored paper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| direction | No | outgoing | |
| include_unresolved | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation returns data, but it does not explain the meaning of unresolved citations, whether incoming citations require a different lookup path, what happens for missing papers, or how resolved versus unresolved evidence is handled.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core behavior. There is no filler, repetition of the tool name, or unnecessary detail.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a tool with three parameters and zero schema coverage. Key behavioral semantics such as what 'citation evidence' includes, what 'unresolved' means, and how direction affects results are missing, leaving the agent to guess at important invocation details.
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 only indirectly clarifies the direction parameter via 'incoming or outgoing'. It provides no additional meaning for paper_id or include_unresolved, and it does not explain allowed direction values or the effect of include_unresolved on the result.
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 clear verb and resource: it returns citation evidence for a stored paper, and it identifies the key incoming/outgoing axis. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar tools like where_used or workspace_get_evidence, but the basic purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as where_used, get_dependencies, or workspace_get_external_result_mentions. There is no statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.