Get an overview of your JabRef library with citation keys, authors, year, title, venue, and DOI for each entry. Use it to review references or select citation keys.
List entries in the JabRef library (citation key, authors, year, title, venue, DOI), most useful for getting an overview or picking citation keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fields returned, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention the effect of the limit parameter, pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral aspects such as whether it returns all entries by default or only a subset. The description is a minimal disclosure of the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists the relevant fields and a usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in depth. However, it omits any mention of the limit parameter's behavior or whether the list is truncated, which is a key operational detail. The usage context is helpful but incomplete without describing how the limit affects results.
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 0% for the single parameter 'limit', and the description does not mention it at all. The description provides no additional meaning about what 'limit' controls (e.g., maximum number of entries). With no compensation from the description, the agent receives no guidance on this parameter beyond its name and default value.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('entries in the JabRef library') and enumerates the returned fields (citation key, authors, year, title, venue, DOI). It differentiates from siblings: list_libraries lists libraries, get_entry fetches a single entry, search is for querying, get_pdf and add_entry are unrelated. The added 'most useful for getting an overview or picking citation keys' further clarifies intent.
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?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'most useful for getting an overview or picking citation keys.' This implies when to use it (for overview or selection) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search or get_entry. It gives clear context without exclusions, fitting a score of 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.