get_paper_detailsRetrieve full metadata for a specific academic paper using its DOI, arXiv ID, or Semantic Scholar ID. Access details like title, authors, and citations.
Get full metadata for a specific paper.
paper_id: Semantic Scholar ID, DOI, arXiv ID, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for invalid IDs, or what 'full metadata' actually includes, which for an unannotated tool is a notable gap.
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 short lines, purpose front-loaded, with the identifier note as a supporting bullet. Nothing redundant, though the bullet could be folded into a single sentence.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally hint at what the returned metadata contains. It says 'full metadata' without enumerating fields, so it is minimally adequate for a single-param lookup but leaves the return shape entirely opaque.
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% and the schema types paper_id only as a string, but the description explicitly enumerates accepted identifier forms (Semantic Scholar ID, DOI, arXiv ID). That is genuine meaning the schema does not convey, and it is the single most useful thing an agent needs to form a valid call.
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 ('Get') and resource ('full metadata for a specific paper'), which an agent can distinguish from search_papers or match_paper_by_title by operation type. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the retrieval-by-identifier intent is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The description never states that this requires an already-known identifier or that batch_get_papers should be used for multiple IDs, leaving the agent to infer the selection context from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.