Retrieve detailed metadata for a specific astronomy paper using its bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID. Supports markdown or JSON output.
Get detailed information about a specific paper by identifier: bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID (scix:...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bibcode | Yes | Paper identifier: bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID (scix:...) | |
| 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 / bibcode / descriptionPrevious value: -"SciX bibcode identifier"New value: +"Paper identifier: bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID (scix:...)"Input schema / properties / bibcode / maxLengthAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / bibcode / minLengthAdded value: +1v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the identifier types already in the schema; it says nothing about error behavior, lookup breadth, or what 'detailed information' includes.
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 wasted words. It leads with the action and resource immediately, then specifies accepted identifier formats.
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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of response_format or the shape of the returned 'detailed information,' leaving an agent to discover those through the schema alone.
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 50%, and the description only repeats the bibcode parameter's accepted identifier types exactly as written in the schema. The second parameter, response_format, is an enum with no description in the schema and is not mentioned at all, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific paper') and enumerates accepted identifier types. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'search' tool, but the purpose is clear without opening the schema.
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 implied: call this when you have a specific paper identifier and need details. However, it never states when to use this instead of 'search' or what to do if the identifier type is unknown, leaving alternatives to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.