Retrieve the list of references (bibliography) for a specific paper using its Scopus ID. Use to obtain citation sources from Scopus.
Retrieve the list of references (bibliography) of 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 references for |
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 full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits (the schema's count/start), return format, rate limits, or auth requirements for a tool that hits the Scopus API.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the resource, and the required identifier with zero filler.
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 no output schema and full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. It omits any note on pagination semantics or output shape, which an agent needs to page correctly, but nothing critical for a basic call is missing.
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 count, start, and scopusId are all documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only restates that scopusId identifies the paper and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 (list of references/bibliography) scoped to a specific paper via its Scopus ID. The parenthetical 'bibliography' clarifies the concept, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_citations, which is a related but distinct relationship.
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 or prerequisites are given. With a sibling get_citations available, an agent could plausibly confuse references (works this paper cites) with citations (works citing this paper); the description does nothing to route between them or state when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.