Fetch works authored by a specific person using an OpenAlex author ID or ORCID, with optional year-range filters and sorting by citation count or publication date.
Works by one author, with optional year filter and sort. Returns the unified envelope. A filter on an identifier, not a term search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that—identifier filtering rather than term search and a unified envelope return—but it does not describe pagination behavior, empty-result behavior, or any special handling. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, optional filters/sort, return envelope, and the important contrast with term search. No filler or schema repetition.
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 list-by-author tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations and whose return stucture is covered by the output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly stronger by naming pagination defaults or explicitly directing term queries to oa_search_works, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is 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?
The visible input schema already documents author_id (OpenAlex ID or ORCID), sort_by, year_from, and year_to with descriptions; the tool description only summarizes these as 'identifier', 'optional year filter', and 'sort'. That adds useful high-level grouping but not extra per-parameter meaning, so a baseline score 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 states a clear retrieval action—works by one author—and narrows it with optional year filtering and sorting. The closing clause, 'A filter on an identifier, not a term search,' differentiates it from oa_search_works, so an agent can tell this tool from its siblings without inspecting the schema.
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?
It clearly signals the intended context: use when an author identifier is known and works by that author are wanted. 'Not a term search' is an explicit exclusion, but the description could have named the sibling search tools as alternatives, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.