Fetch an author's Semantic Scholar profile by author ID, returning metadata such as name, affiliations, and publication history. Enables direct lookup for research and discovery.
Get one Semantic Scholar author by author ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| author_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get one author' and does not mention what happens on missing IDs, what fields are returned, rate limits, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally implied but not detailed.
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, terse sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the scope, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the key action.
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?
For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the fields parameter, usage context, or any behavioral nuances, leaving an agent with incomplete information to call it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that author_id is used to identify the author, but completely omits any explanation of the 'fields' parameter—its purpose, allowed values, or format. With two parameters, this is a significant 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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Semantic Scholar author', and the identifier 'author ID'. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_authors (plural) and search_authors (search-based), so an agent can easily tell it apart.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_authors or get_authors. There is no mention of conditions such as 'when you have a known author ID' or exclusions, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.