Retrieve metadata for up to 500 papers by supplying their identifiers. Specify fields to get only needed data, enabling efficient batch access.
Batch-get up to 500 caller-supplied paper identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| paper_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful constraint ('up to 500') and makes the retrieval semantics inferable from 'batch-get', but it does not mention handling of invalid IDs, over-limit requests, error behavior, or the effect of the optional fields parameter.
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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, object, and key constraint with no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure makes the main behavior immediately clear.
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 output schema covers returned values, and paper_ids is clearly described enough for a straightforward batch fetch. However, the optional fields parameter is entirely unexplained and there is no explicit guidance distinguishing this tool from get_paper, so an agent may under-specify the request or choose the wrong sibling.
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 paper_ids are caller-supplied paper identifiers and that the batch is capped at 500, but it says nothing about the fields parameter—its meaning, allowed values, or effect—leaving one of two parameters effectively undocumented.
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 names a specific verb ('batch-get'), resource ('papers'), and defining constraints ('up to 500 caller-supplied paper identifiers'). This clearly distinguishes it from the search_* siblings, which do not take caller-supplied paper_ids, and from get_paper, which is the singular variant.
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 phrase 'caller-supplied paper identifiers' signals that this tool is for known IDs rather than search queries, and 'batch' positions it for fetching multiple papers at once. It does not explicitly name get_paper for single lookups or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.