Scholar Feed MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions the return format but omits critical traits like rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or whether the export includes all paper metadata. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second clarifies the output format. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains the output format but misses behavioral context (e.g., limits, errors). Given the simplicity, it's borderline viable but lacks depth for reliable agent use.

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 fully documents the 'arxiv_ids' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the IDs correspond to arXiv papers, which is already clear from the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Export BibTeX entries') and resource ('arXiv papers'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_paper' or 'fetch_fulltext' by focusing on formatted output for LaTeX/reference managers rather than raw data retrieval.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'get_paper' for metadata or 'fetch_fulltext' for full content, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing valid arXiv IDs.

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