Retrieve details for a SeqCode publication subject by numeric ID, including associated publications, with page-based pagination.
Retrieve detailed information about a specific publication subject by its numeric ID, including associated publications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for the publications list (1-based). Default: 1. | |
| subject_id | Yes | The numeric ID of the subject (e.g. 1). |
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' implies a read-only lookup, and it usefully discloses that the response bundles associated publications, but it says nothing about authentication, invalid-ID behavior, or the fact that the publications portion is paginated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose first and the key payload detail ('including associated publications') second; nothing is wasted. It is slightly terse for a tool with no annotations, but structurally 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?
For a simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers both the subject detail and the accompanying publications, which substitutes for the missing return-value documentation. It stops short of explaining pagination of the publications list, which the page parameter implies.
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 both parameters (subject_id, page) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description confirms subject_id is numeric and hints that the publications list is part of the result, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific publication subject by its numeric ID') and adds the scope detail that associated publications are included. It is clearly distinguishable from list_subjects by the singular 'a specific subject' plus ID-based lookup, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by its numeric ID' signals the prerequisite of already having an ID, and the singular retrieval contrasts with the list_* siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use vs get_publication/get_name/get_journal guidance and no exclusions or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.