Verify whether an arXiv ID or DOI resolves and return its real title to catch fabricated or plausible-looking identifiers.
Verify that an arXiv id or DOI actually resolves, and return its real title.
Pass an arXiv id (e.g. '2412.18004' or 'arXiv:2412.18004') or a DOI. A 'checked' verdict includes the genuine title, so a plausible-looking but fabricated identifier is caught as 'refuted'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | 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 behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful output semantics: a 'checked' verdict returns the genuine title, while a fabricated identifier yields 'refuted'. That verdict vocabulary is genuinely useful, but failure modes (network errors, malformed input handling, latency) are not mentioned.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the second covers input format and the third covers the verdict semantics. No filler, and each sentence adds information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema and no annotations means the description must cover both input and response semantics, which it largely does via the checked/refuted verdict explanation. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter tool, though it omits what happens on unresolvable-but-valid-looking edge cases or errors.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the parameter concept (arXiv id or DOI) and supplies two concrete arXiv formats plus DOI acceptance. This covers the practically important format ambiguity even though it doesn't specify a DOI example.
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 (verify) and resource (arXiv id or DOI), plus a secondary outcome (return its real title). The verification framing clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_quote, check_code, check_repo and check_math, which each target a different artifact type.
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 establishes the trigger condition (you have an identifier that may be fabricated) and the motivation for using it. It gives concrete accepted input formats, but never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one, so it falls short of the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.