Add documents to a SciX library from a search query by specifying the library ID and query, with optional result count.
Add documents to a library from a SciX search query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | Number of results to add | |
| query | Yes | SciX search query | |
| library_id | Yes | Library identifier | |
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / library_id / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / query / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / rows / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of results to add (1-2000, default 25)"New value: +"Number of results to add"Input schema / properties / rows / maximumAdded value: +2000Input schema / properties / rows / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / rows / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't state whether duplicate documents are skipped or re-added, whether the operation is cancellable/undoable, or what happens when the query matches more than 'rows' results.
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 no filler, which is appropriate for a terse tool. It is arguably too terse given the mutation semantics, but it wastes no words.
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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no annotations explaining side effects, the description should say what the call returns (count added?) and how duplicates are handled. Those gaps leave the agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.
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 75%, so most parameters (query, library_id, rows) are self-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline.
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 (Add) and resource (documents to a library) plus the source (SciX search query), which is more informative than a bare name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like manage_documents or search_docs, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the library must exist or that permission is required), and no routing to alternatives such as manage_documents for other document-editing modes. The agent is left to infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.