OpenPapers

Remove paper from collection

remove_paper_from_collection

Remove a paper from a persistent local collection without deleting the paper, preserving it for future use.

Instructions

Remove a paper from a persistent local collection without deleting the paper.

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>",
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_paper_from_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper_id`	Yes
`collection_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does state the key side-effect boundary: the paper is not deleted. It does not disclose other behaviors such as whether removal is idempotent, whether an empty collection remains, or what happens if the paper/collection does not exist.

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 entire definition is one efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the important 'without deleting the paper' caveat is included immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics needed to invoke it: what is removed and what is preserved. It is not exhaustive (e.g., no error conditions or empty-collection behavior), but it is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It names the conceptual objects (paper and collection) but does not explicitly map paper_id and collection_id to their roles or explain where valid IDs come from. The parameter names are quite self-explanatory, reducing the gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear object ('a paper') and scope ('from a persistent local collection'), and distinguishes itself from deletion by adding 'without deleting the paper.' This clearly separates it from delete_collection and related paper-deletion tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the intended use: removing a paper's membership in a collection while preserving the paper itself. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over add_paper_to_collection or delete_collection, or mention any prerequisites such as the collection existing.

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