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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by explaining the two search algorithms (embedding similarity for topics, fuzzy matching for names) and the return data (h-index, paper counts, etc.). However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which are important for a discovery tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It efficiently explains the tool's functionality, search modes, and return values in three concise sentences without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and behavior well but lacks information on output structure (beyond listing return fields), error handling, or performance considerations, which would enhance completeness for a discovery tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'q' can be a topic or name and implying how 'field' and 'limit' might be used in context, but it does not provide significant additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('discover researchers') and resources ('by topic or name'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_author' (which likely retrieves a specific author) and 'search_papers' (which focuses on papers rather than authors). It explicitly mentions two distinct search modes: semantic search for topics and fuzzy matching for names.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for discovering researchers via topic or name queries) and implies usage by describing the two search modes. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'get_uthor' for direct author retrieval or 'search_papers' for paper-based searches.

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