Jina AI Remote 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. It mentions the tool is 'perfect for finding research papers' and covers subject domains, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or response format. The description adds some context about what can be searched but lacks operational details.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some phrases.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral traits and output format, which are important for a search tool with no annotations or 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%, providing detailed documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding extra meaning.

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 ('search academic papers and preprints') and identifies the target resource ('SSRN/Social Science Research Network'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the academic focus and subject domains (social sciences, economics, law, etc.), unlike generic search tools like search_web or search_images.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when researching social science topics, looking for working papers, or finding the latest research in business and economics fields.' It also implies differentiation from siblings by specifying the academic/SSRN focus, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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