Fetch a single CiNii Research record by URL or CRID and return its unified metadata envelope for articles, books, dissertations, projects, or researcher profiles.
Fetch a single CiNii record by URL or CRID. Returns the unified envelope (operation 'get_record').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Input schema / $defs / RecordLookupInput / properties / record_url / maxLengthAdded value: +2000v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the unified envelope with operation 'get_record', which is mild context, but says nothing about error behavior for a bad CRID, unknown URLs, or result size.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence about the envelope is partly redundant given a full output schema exists, keeping it from a 5.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, the input formats accepted, and the return envelope. Only failure modes and CRID format details are missing.
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 reported as 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry some weight; it does clarify that either a full URL or a CRID is accepted. However, it gives no format examples, no valid CRID pattern, and no guidance on the 2000-character limit.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single CiNii record') and distinguishes itself from the search siblings by emphasizing a single record looked up by URL or CRID rather than a query. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the follow-up call after a search returns a record URL/CRID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over re-searching, and no note about what to do if the lookup fails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.