Retrieve scholarly citation networks and academic metadata by DOI or search query through the OpenAlex API to map research connections and verify references.
Scholarly citation network and academic research metadata via OpenAlex API (CC0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | No | Digital Object Identifier (e.g. '10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2') | |
| query | No | Search term for scholarly papers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a third-party OpenAlex API with CC0 licensing, which usefully signals open-world data provenance and reusability. It omits rate limits, pagination, error behavior for unknown DOIs, and what happens when neither parameter is supplied.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler. However, the brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficiency: the fragment lacks a verb and front-loads the domain over the actual operation.
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?
For an open-world external-API tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the agent needs to know what a call returns, whether a bare call with no arguments is valid, and how doi vs query resolve. None of that is present, leaving the invocation shape ambiguous.
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%, so the schema documents both parameters including a DOI example. The description adds no semantics beyond this — nothing on whether doi and query can be combined, precedence, or expected behavior when both are omitted (0 required params). Baseline 3 applies.
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 names the resource domain (scholarly citation network and academic research metadata) and the backing source (OpenAlex), but it is a noun phrase with no verb — it never says whether the tool looks up a work by DOI, searches by keyword, or both. An agent must infer the operation from the parameter names alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the siblings (vault_knowledge_search is the nearest neighbor for scholarly-ish queries). Critically, it doesn't say how to choose between the doi and query parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.