Scholar Feed MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying what it returns (connection status, subscription plan, etc.) and that it checks 'today's API usage count', which implies read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function and output without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it could be more comprehensive by including error scenarios or usage limits, which are relevant for an API connection check.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and output, which compensates for the lack of parameters, earning a baseline score above 3.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('verify', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('Scholar Feed API key'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on connection verification rather than research operations like searching papers or analyzing authors.

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 implies usage context: verify API key functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for troubleshooting vs. regular operations) or mention prerequisites like needing an API key first.

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