Retrieve papers that cite a specific Scopus paper by its Scopus ID. Supports pagination to fetch citation results in batches.
Retrieve the list of papers that cite a specific paper using its Scopus ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of results to return (default: 20, max: 200) | |
| start | No | Starting index for pagination (default: 0) | |
| scopusId | Yes | The Scopus ID of the paper to get citations for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format/ordering of the returned list, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Given the low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and full schema description coverage, the description adequately states the return type. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on pagination behavior and usage context, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the parameters (scopusId, count, start) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'list of papers that cite a specific paper', clearly distinguishing it from tools like get_references (which retrieves papers a paper references) and get_citation_overview. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify how it differs from siblings.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_references or get_citation_overview. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.