Retrieve detailed metadata for a specific paper using its Scopus EID or ID to prevent citation hallucination.
Retrieve detailed information about a specific paper using its Scopus EID or Scopus ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | Comma-separated list of fields to return (optional) | |
| scopusId | Yes | The Scopus ID or EID of the paper. Examples: '2-s2.0-85123456789', '85123456789' |
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 full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), error behavior for invalid IDs, what fields are returned by default, or any rate-limit / permission context. It only restates the lookup mechanism.
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 verb, no wasted words. It could be slightly more useful by mentioning the alternative tool or the optional field parameter, but it is appropriate in length.
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 read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but misses useful context: it doesn't specify the return format, whether 'field' can narrow output, or how it differs from get_paper_by_doi. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral detail would be expected.
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 schema already documents both parameters with examples and the optional 'field' filter. The description adds the fact that valid identifiers are EID or Scopus ID, which marginally supplements the schema but doesn't add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (paper details) plus the identifier mechanism (EID or Scopus ID). It distinguishes itself from search_papers by implying direct lookup, but doesn't explicitly name siblings like get_paper_by_doi to clarify the identifier alternative.
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?
No when-to-use guidance beyond the identifier itself. The presence of get_paper_by_doi as a sibling means an agent must infer that this tool is only for EID/Scopus IDs, but the description doesn't state that or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.