search_authorsSearch academic authors by name and return paginated results, enabling you to identify researcher profiles for literature reviews and citations.
Search for authors by name.
query: Author name to search for (e.g. 'Yoshua Bengio').
limit: Number of results (default 10).
offset: Pagination offset (default 0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
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 disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, how results are ranked or returned, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or what happens when there are no matches. The presence of offset/limit implies pagination but the return format is never described.
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?
Front-loaded purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list; no filler sentences. The example for 'query' adds value at negligible length.
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 simple 3-parameter search with no output schema, documenting every parameter is close to sufficient, but the description is silent on result shape, ordering, and total-count behavior, which an agent needs to page correctly. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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, and it does: it names all three parameters with meaning, an example value for 'query', and defaults for limit (10) and offset (0). Only the shape/semantics of the result page remains unexplained.
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: 'Search for authors by name.' This clearly separates it from the paper-oriented siblings (search_papers, bulk_search_papers, get_paper_details). It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_author_details, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions get_author_details as the alternative for looking up a known author. The agent must infer that this is a discovery tool for when an author identifier is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.