Retrieve full paper details by paperid: abstract, keywords, authors, journal, citations, DOI, funding, and full-text links. Use paperid from search_papers for complete citation and access info.
按 paperid 返回论文完整详情:完整摘要、关键词、作者、期刊(卷/期/页码/ISSN/CN)、被引、DOI、基金、阅读量、研究领域,以及知网/万方/维普等全部外部全文链接。paperid 来自 search_papers 返回结果。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paperid | Yes | 论文 id,来自 search_papers 结果的 paperid 字段 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries burden. It fully discloses what the operation returns (full details, external links) and is clearly a read operation; no side effects or hidden behavior. Lacks notes on edge cases like missing paperid, but core behavior is transparent.
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?
One dense, structured sentence front-loads the verb and resource, enumerates all returned fields, then gives the paperid source. No filler, ideal length.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core semantics, return content list, and the paperid origin. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it, though it does not describe result format or edge cases; sibling context rounds it out.
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 covers paperid at 100%, so baseline 3 applies. Description restates the source of paperid ('来自 search_papers'), matching the schema, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns complete paper details by paperid, enumerating specific fields (abstract, keywords, authors, journal, citations, DOI, etc.), and differentiates from search_papers and get_paper_citations by full-detail scope rather than search or citation-specific.
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?
States that paperid must come from search_papers results, giving clear context on how to invoke it. Doesn't explicitly contrast with get_paper_citations or state when not to use the tool, but the purpose itself implies it for full details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.