Scholar MCP

Does 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 but only identifies the data source ('Google Scholar'). It fails to mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, result ordering, or whether results are cached.

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 single sentence contains no redundant words and immediately communicates the core function. However, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification given the tool's complexity (5 parameters with pagination and filtering).

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?

Despite having 5 parameters (including pagination and date filtering) and an output schema, the description is minimal. It omits critical context for effective use such as pagination mechanics, date filter applicability, and how results are ranked or formatted.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It only implicitly hints at the 'query' parameter via 'topic keywords' but provides no explanation for 'cursor' (pagination), 'page_size', or the year range filters, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 (Search), resource (Google Scholar papers), and method (by topic keywords). The phrase 'by topic keywords' implicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'get_author_papers', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'get_author_papers', nor does it explain pagination strategy (cursor parameter) or when to apply date filters (year_min/year_max). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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