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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content (h-index, citations, etc.) and scope ('top 10 papers by rank score'), which is useful. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a mutation-sensitive agent.

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 and efficiently lists return details in a single, well-structured sentence. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage context, and return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or operational limits, which would be beneficial for full completeness in the absence of annotations.

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 'author_id' parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the source of IDs ('from discover_authors results'), which provides semantic context beyond the schema. With no other parameters, this compensates well, but it doesn't fully explain format or constraints beyond the schema's basics.

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 ('Get detailed author profile') and resource ('by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'discover_authors' (which likely lists authors) and 'get_author_papers' (which focuses on papers rather than profile details). It specifies the source of IDs ('from discover_authors results'), avoiding ambiguity.

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 ('by ID (from discover_authors results)'), implying it should be used after obtaining an author ID from 'discover_authors'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_author_papers' for papers instead of profile), which prevents a score of 5.

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