export_bibtexConvert research sources into BibTeX entries, optionally filter by tag, and write references.bib beside the notebook for citation-ready exports.
Render sources as BibTeX. Optionally filter by tag and/or write the result to references.bib next to the notebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| write | No | Also write references.bib to the notebook folder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the meaningful side effect and its location ('write the result to references.bib next to the notebook'), which is useful context beyond the schema. However it omits whether the file is overwritten, whether auth is needed, and whether the BibTeX text is also returned.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the optional behaviors. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.
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 two-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, filtering, and file side effect, which is roughly adequate. It still leaves the return value (inline BibTeX string vs. file-only) and overwrite semantics unspecified, which an agent would need when no output schema exists.
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?
Two parameters at 50% schema coverage: the 'write' flag is documented in the schema, while 'tag' has none. The description compensates partially by explaining the filter-by-tag behavior and append the concrete output filename, which adds meaning beyond the bare 'write' boolean. This lands at the baseline 3 given the mixed coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Render sources as BibTeX'), which is concrete enough to separate it from export_markdown in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast with it, so it stops short of a 5.
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 word 'Optionally' hints that filtering and writing are discretionary, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus export_markdown or the other exporters, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.