mcp-server-ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the return values (specific metrics and histograms) and the bibcode limit (~2000), which helps set expectations beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail rate limits, auth needs, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and scope. Both sentences are essential: the first defines the action and output, the second adds critical constraints. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and operational limits. However, it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings, but the output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (bibcodes and types). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'compute' and resource 'citation metrics for a set of papers', specifying what metrics are returned (h-index, g-index, etc.) and the scope (1 to ~2000 bibcodes). It distinguishes from siblings like ads_search or ads_bigquery by focusing specifically on metric computation rather than searching, querying, or exporting.

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 implies usage for computing citation metrics given bibcodes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ads_citation_helper or ads_search. It provides a scope (1-2000 bibcodes) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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