OpenPapers

Resolve author

resolve_author

Resolve Semantic Scholar author profiles and retrieve linked paper identifiers for provenance-first scholarly retrieval and reproducible research workflows.

Instructions

Resolve a Semantic Scholar author profile and linked paper identifiers.

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": {
      "author_id": "<author_id>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_author"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`author_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool returns a profile and linked paper identifiers, but it does not explain what 'resolve' means, whether it performs a lookup or mapping, what input formats are accepted, or what failure modes exist.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the main resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining inputs, behavior, and return values. It only states the high-level outcome, leaving important usage details undocumented.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or expected format of author_id. The schema only states it is a non-empty string, leaving the agent without critical information about what identifier to supply.

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 ('resolve') and names a concrete resource ('Semantic Scholar author profile and linked paper identifiers'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which target author resolution, so an agent can identify the intended purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The description implies 'use this when you need author info,' but it does not state exclusions, fallbacks, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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