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 explains the citation graph concept but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (since no output schema exists). The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly explain the tool's core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently clarifies the direction parameter.

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 complexity (5 parameters, citation graph functionality) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'citation graph' returns structurally, how results are formatted, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with rich parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 minimal value by explaining the 'direction' parameter's semantics ('citing' = outgoing, 'cited_by' = incoming), but this is largely redundant with the schema's enum description. No additional parameter context is provided beyond what's in the structured 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the citation graph') and resource ('for a paper'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_paper or search_papers by focusing on citation relationships. It precisely defines the two directional options, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_paper (which might include citation data) or search_papers (for broader searches). It explains the direction parameter but offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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