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 and does so well: it discloses behavioral traits like performance ('May take a few seconds'), availability constraints ('~62% of arXiv papers have LaTeX source'), and output characteristics (char limits and section details for each mode). It does not contradict any annotations, and adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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, starting with the core purpose and immediately detailing the two modes. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains modes, the third gives availability stats, and the fourth notes performance. There is no wasted text, and it's structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (two modes with different outputs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. However, it lacks explicit details on error handling or exact output format (e.g., structure of returned content), which could be helpful for a tool with varied outputs based on mode.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by explaining the modes ('results' and 'all') in more detail than the schema's enum descriptions, such as char limits and specific sections included. However, it does not provide additional semantics for 'arxiv_id' or syntax details beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Extract paper content from an arXiv paper's LaTeX source') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_paper' or 'get_paper_results' by focusing on LaTeX source extraction rather than metadata or results only. It specifies the resource (arXiv paper's LaTeX source) and verb (extract content) with precision.

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 for when to use this tool (e.g., for extracting content from LaTeX sources, with ~62% coverage of arXiv papers) and implies usage through mode descriptions ('results' vs. 'all'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_paper' for non-LaTeX content.

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