Fetch detailed metadata for a specific publication using its numeric ID, including citation, DOI, title, journal, abstract, authors, and subjects.
Retrieve detailed information about a specific publication by its numeric ID. Includes citation, DOI, title, journal, type, abstract, authors, associated names, and subjects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publication_id | Yes | The numeric ID of the publication (e.g. 3944). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' and the returned-field list make the read-only nature clear, but it says nothing about permissions, error handling for missing IDs, rate limits, or pagination — the remaining gaps a caller would care about.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus scope is front-loaded before the return-field enumeration. Every clause earns its place, especially the field list which substitutes for a missing output schema.
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?
With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (citation, DOI, title, journal, authors, subjects) is genuinely useful and covers the return contract. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, though error behavior for an invalid or nonexistent ID is left unstated.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, minimum, and an example. The description only reinforces that the ID is numeric, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('publication') scoped to a single record fetched by numeric ID, which implicitly separates it from the list_publications sibling. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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 phrase 'by its numeric ID' implies the precondition for use (you already have an ID), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer list_publications or search_seqcode instead, and no mention of behavior for an unknown ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.