cinii-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cinii_search_researchers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search CiNii Research for researcher profiles by name or institution to locate Japanese academic experts and retrieve their profile URLs.

Instructions

Search for researchers in CiNii. Returns the unified envelope (record_type 'researcher').

Note: researcher affiliation is not carried by the record schema; the researcher name occupies the title field and the profile URL the ids.url_ja field.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.2.0Oct 25, 2026
- changedInput schema / $defs / ResearcherSearchInput / properties / institution / anyOf
```
Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 2000,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- addedInput schema / $defs / ResearcherSearchInput / properties / query / maxLength
```
Added value: +2000
```
First observedv3.0.0Aug 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful structural disclosure beyond annotations: the unified envelope shape (record_type 'researcher') and the key caveat that affiliation is absent and name lives in title while profile URL is in ids.url_ja. This is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact and high-value note about record structure. No wasted sentences, though the note is slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully explained. The description covers the essential caveats an agent needs (envelope type, affiliation absence, field placement). The main remaining gap is behavioral detail on pagination (start/count), which is minor given the rich schema constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the nested object has five fields (query, lang, count, start, institution) with no textual descriptions. The description says nothing about these parameters or their semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The field-mapping note concerns output, not input parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search for researchers in CiNii'. The 'record_type researcher' clarifies the return. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like cinii_search_articles or cinii_search_all, but the resource is distinct enough that selection is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the resource name 'researchers'. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of when to prefer cinii_search_all or cinii_get_record, and no prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Deploy Server