OpenAlex Author Disambiguation MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with open-world assumptions. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format (dict with total_found, results_returned, results), default values (max_results: 10), and limits (max: 50), though it does not mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args, Returns, and Example usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is complete. It explains parameters, return values, and usage examples, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing to rely solely on structured fields.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'name' as author name with examples, 'affiliation' for disambiguation, and 'max_results' with default and max values. However, it does not detail format constraints or edge cases for parameters beyond what's implied.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('ORCID for author profiles'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_authors' or 'search_pubmed' by specifying the ORCID database and author profiles as the target.

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 clear context for usage (searching by name and affiliation for disambiguation) and includes an example with affiliation for better results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_authors' or 'autocomplete_authors', missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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