literature_publishersList human-reviewed publisher domains and enabled access methods to verify approved sources and available access before retrieving content.
List human-reviewed publisher domains and enabled access methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that results are human-reviewed and access methods are enabled. It does not contradict annotations and appropriately signals a safe, non-mutating listing operation.
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 conveys the essential resource and scope without redundancy. Every word adds value.
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 a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. An agent knows exactly what to expect and how to invoke the tool correctly without further detail.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter details to document, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.
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 uses a specific verb (List) with a concrete resource: human-reviewed publisher domains and enabled access methods. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like literature_read or literature_figure_read, which operate on content rather than source metadata.
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 context is clear: an agent should call this to discover approved publisher domains and their access methods before reading literature. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the intended usage is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.