Scholar Feed MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only works for papers with an associated code URL, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a crucial constraint in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the summary) or potential errors. However, it adequately covers the purpose and usage constraint for a simple single-parameter tool, meeting minimal viability.

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 the arxiv_id parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the arXiv ID must correspond to a paper with a code URL, but this is minimal value over the schema.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('GitHub repository summary for a paper'), specifying it includes README content and file tree. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on repository data rather than paper metadata or other operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: for papers with an associated code URL. However, it doesn't specify when not to use or name alternative tools (e.g., get_paper for general paper info), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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