Add or remove documents in a NASA SciX library using bibcodes; removing entries discards those records from that library.
Add or remove documents from a library. Removal discards the record of those documents in that library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform (add or remove) | |
| bibcodes | Yes | List of bibcodes | |
| 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 / action / descriptionPrevious value: -"Action to perform"New value: +"Action to perform (add or remove)"Input schema / properties / bibcodes / descriptionPrevious value: -"List of bibcodes (1-2000)"New value: +"List of bibcodes"Input schema / properties / bibcodes / maxItemsAdded value: +2000Input schema / properties / bibcodes / minItemsAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / library_id / minLengthAdded value: +1v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: removal 'discards the record of those documents in that library,' clarifying that the deletion is library-scoped rather than a global document delete. It stops short of noting permission requirements or the behavior of duplicate adds.
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?
Two short sentences, no waste, with the add/remove capability front-loaded and the destructive caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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 4-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core operation and the consequence of removal, but omits prerequisite permissions, partial-failure behavior when some bibcodes fail, and why removal is marked idempotent. Adequate but with clear 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 75% and the description itself adds nothing about parameters — it never mentions bibcodes, library_id, action, or response_format. With the schema already documenting three of four parameters, the baseline 3 applies.
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 pair (add/remove) and resource (documents in a library), so the agent immediately knows this is a bulk membership operation keyed on bibcodes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling add_documents_by_query, which is the closest overlapping tool.
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 and no mention of alternatives such as add_documents_by_query (query-driven addition) or library_operation. The agent must infer from the parameter names that this is the explicit-bibcode path rather than the query path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.