Retrieve detailed Scopus author information by Author ID, including h-index, citation counts, subject areas, and top co-authors for accurate citation analysis.
Retrieve detailed information about a specific author using their Scopus Author ID, including h-index, citation count, subject areas, and top co-authors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| authorId | Yes | The Scopus Author ID. Examples: '57217123456' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the returned content (h-index, citation count, subject areas, top co-authors), which compensates for the absent output schema. However, it says nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned-field list appended rather than padding. Nothing is wasted and the key constraints lead.
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 read lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the fields returned, which is the information the schema cannot convey. Only the absence of error/edge-case guidance keeps it from being fully complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the Scopus Author ID with an example, so the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the explanatory work.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (author) keyed by Scopus Author ID, and enumerates the returned fields, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_authors, though the ID-based lookup framing implies the difference.
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 only implied: the requirement of a Scopus Author ID signals a single-entity lookup rather than a search. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of search_authors or get_author_publications, and no prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.