OpenAlex Author Disambiguation MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context about pagination behavior ('ALL works via pagination'), maximum limit constraints ('max: 2000'), and the meaning of 'balanced peer-review filters'. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides operational details beyond the structured hints.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Usage Patterns) and front-loaded purpose statement. While comprehensive, every sentence adds value - no redundant information. The usage patterns section could be slightly more concise but effectively demonstrates practical applications.

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?

Given the complex parameter set (8 parameters), 0% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains all parameters, demonstrates usage patterns, mentions behavioral constraints, and references the return type. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on usage guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters with clear semantics: author_id format examples, limit behavior with pagination, order_by options, filter purposes, and default values. Each parameter's meaning and usage context is explicitly documented beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves author works with flexible filtering, specifying 'peer-reviewed only' in the title and description. It distinguishes from siblings like search_works by focusing specifically on author-centric retrieval rather than general search. The verb 'retrieve' with resource 'author works' is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit usage patterns with three distinct scenarios: AI validation, complete benchmark evaluation, and default peer-reviewed behavior. It distinguishes when to use different parameter combinations and explicitly mentions when to disable default filters (peer_reviewed_only=False, journal_only=False) for alternative use cases.

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