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 mentions ranking criteria and time window, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 clarifying constraint in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and basic constraints. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational limits, which are important for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 all 4 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 today's trending CS/AI papers') and resource ('papers'), with explicit scope ('ranked by a composite score of recency, citation velocity, and institutional reputation') and time constraint ('Papers from the last 7 days'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'get_paper' by focusing on trending rather than general search or individual 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?

The description implies usage context ('today's trending', 'last 7 days') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers' for broader queries or 'get_paper' for specific papers. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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