fip-mcp

recommend

Retrieve the resources a research community has agreed on for a topic, with URLs and descriptions, before suggesting repositories, formats, licences, vocabularies, or identifiers.

Instructions

What the community has agreed for one topic, with each resource's URL and description. Call this BEFORE suggesting a repository, file format, licence, vocabulary or identifier scheme to a researcher in this community.

topic: identifier, metadata-schema, linking, repository, protocol, access, longevity, format, vocabulary, references, licence, provenance, standards — or a FAIR principle such as "I1".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "community": "<community>",
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "recommend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	Yes
`community`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does partially: it discloses that results include each resource's URL and description, implying a read-only multi-result lookup. It says nothing about result volume, whether a community must already exist, or what happens for an unrecognized community or topic, which are material gaps for a mutation-free but opaque lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and the before-you-recommend instruction are front-loaded, and the trailing em-dash list of valid topics earns its space by encoding domain values absent from the schema. Slight redundancy in re-listing domains ('repository', 'format', 'licence') twice, but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-required-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape and one parameter's value space. It is incomplete on the other parameter and on failure modes, leaving an agent unable to form a valid 'community' value without a separate discovery call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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, and it does for 'topic' by enumerating a controlled vocabulary (repository, format, vocabulary, licence, provenance, standards, FAIR principles like 'I1'). 'Community' is left completely unexplained — no format, slug convention, or suggestion to use the communities tool to discover valid values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific retrieval purpose: it returns 'what the community has agreed for one topic, with each resource's URL and description.' That is concrete enough to distinguish it from lookups like check, crosswalk or profile, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this BEFORE suggesting a repository, file format, licence, vocabulary or identifier scheme to a researcher in this community.' That is a clear use-case trigger. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative tool for adjacent needs.

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

Deploy Server