Find papers authored by a specific researcher. Provide the author ID to retrieve a paginated list, with options to limit results, offset, and filter by publication date.
Get one page of papers associated with a Semantic Scholar author.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| author_id | Yes | ||
| publication_date_or_year | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals pagination behavior ('one page'), but it leaves the meaning of 'associated' ambiguous (authored, co-authored, or cited?) and says nothing about ordering, rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior.
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?
A single 10-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficiently sized for a straightforward tool, though its brevity comes at the cost of the semantic gaps noted in other dimensions.
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?
With 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, overlapping siblings, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. An output schema exists, which spares it from documenting return values, but parameter semantics and tool-selection context remain unaddressed.
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% with 5 parameters, yet the description explains none of them. While names like author_id, limit, and offset are somewhat self-explanatory, the meaning and format of fields and publication_date_or_year are completely unexplained, and the description adds no value beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one page of papers associated with a Semantic Scholar author') that clearly distinguishes it from author-lookup siblings like get_author and search_authors. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from paper-lookup siblings like get_papers or search_papers, which could also be selected for fetching papers.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_papers, search_papers, or search_papers_relevance. With a sibling list full of overlapping paper-fetching tools, the absence of any selection criteria or exclusions leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.