Download Elsevier full-text XML by DOI for indexing; returns a paper_id for index_papers when access entitlement is available. Rejects metadata-only responses.
Download Elsevier full-text XML by DOI. Requires ELSEVIER_API_KEY and access entitlement.
Returns paper_id for index_papers. Metadata-only responses are not accepted as full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the auth/entitlement requirement plus an important behavioral constraint (metadata-only responses are rejected as full text) and the returned identifier. It omits failure modes, error behavior, and where the downloaded XML is stored, keeping it below the top band.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then output linkage and constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.
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 one-parameter downloader with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, the return value, and the key acceptance constraint. Missing details (destination/format of the downloaded XML, error cases) are minor but non-zero gaps.
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 0% for the single doi parameter, but the description indicates the DOI is the lookup key and the target is Elsevier full-text XML. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the added meaning is marginal rather than compensatory.
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 (Download), resource (Elsevier full-text XML), and retrieval key (DOI), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling download_springer_nature_paper by publisher. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or stating it should not be used for non-Elsevier DOIs, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Gives concrete preconditions (ELSEVIER_API_KEY and access entitlement) and a downstream workflow hint (returns paper_id for index_papers), which is more than implied usage. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this over alternatives such as download_springer_nature_paper or extract_paper.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.