Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
semantic-scholar-mcp

semantic-scholar-mcp

by ckgerteis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

s2_get_author

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an author by Semantic Scholar Author ID. Returns the author's unified record or NOT_FOUND if the ID is invalid.

Instructions

Look up one author by Semantic Scholar Author ID. Returns the unified envelope with a single author item, or NOT_FOUND.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "s2_get_author"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return shape ('unified envelope with a single author item') and the NOT_FOUND outcome, which is beyond what the annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated in a compact, informative second sentence.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input key, the single-item return envelope, and the not-found case; only explicit alternative routing to search tools is absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is only one parameter, author_id, and the description repeats its purpose ('by Semantic Scholar Author ID') rather than adding new details like ID format or how to obtain it. The schema also provides a minimal description, so combined coverage is sufficient but not enhanced.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('one author'), and the exact key ('Semantic Scholar Author ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like s2_search_authors, which search by query rather than lookup by ID.

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?

The description implies usage: use this when you have an Author ID and need a single author. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over s2_search_authors or mention any exclusions, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools