OpenPapers

Refresh paper

refresh_paper

Updates locally cached metadata for a research paper by using its provider-native identifier to fetch current details from the source.

Instructions

Refresh locally stored metadata through an available provider-native identifier.

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": {
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "refresh_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates local metadata is modified ('Refresh locally stored metadata') but does not disclose potential overwrites, network dependence, failure behavior when no provider-native identifier is available, or whether remote data is affected.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, though the phrase 'available provider-native identifier' is somewhat dense and could be clearer.

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 simple single-parameter refresh action, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics adequately. However, it omits expected output, edge cases like a missing provider-native identifier, and any caveats about modifying local state, leaving some room for agent confusion.

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 provides only the parameter name and basic string constraints with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by identifying paper_id as a provider-native identifier, which helps the agent understand what value to supply, but it does not explain what 'provider-native' means or how to obtain such an identifier.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Refresh') and resource ('locally stored metadata') and adds the mechanism ('provider-native identifier'). It distinguishes the target from the sibling refresh_collection tool by identifying the paper-specific scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_paper, search_papers, or refresh_collection. The description implies a use case but provides no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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