OpenPapers

Refresh collection

refresh_collection

Update stored metadata for every paper in a group while preserving each paper's outcomes.

Instructions

Refresh locally stored metadata for every paper in a collection, preserving per-paper outcomes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "refresh_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collection_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation targets locally stored metadata and preserves per-paper outcomes, which are non-obvious and useful traits. However, it omits details about permissions, whether remote data is fetched, failure behavior, and return value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The main action is stated first, and the important preservation constraint is included concisely.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter refresh operation, the description covers the core purpose and the key outcome-preservation behavior. But without an output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps around return/status information, error conditions, and when to choose refresh_paper instead of refresh_collection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one collection_id parameter with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description mentions 'collection' and helps establish that the ID identifies a collection of papers, but it does not explain the parameter format, source, or how to obtain the ID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: refreshing locally stored metadata for every paper in a collection. It also distinguishes itself from sibling refresh_paper by specifying collection-wide scope and adds an important qualifier about preserving per-paper outcomes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when metadata for all papers in a collection needs to be refreshed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as refresh_paper or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.