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, indicating safe read operations with open-world data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying return format ('dict: Search results with PMIDs, article metadata, and summary statistics'), default values, and constraints (max_results: max 50). It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances behavioral understanding.

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, Example usage) and front-loaded purpose. It's appropriately sized, but the example usage section is somewhat lengthy with three examples; one might suffice. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (search with multiple parameters), annotations covering safety, and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is complete. It explains parameters thoroughly, provides return format details, includes examples, and doesn't need to duplicate output schema information. All essential context is covered.

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 detailing all parameters: 'query' as search query with examples (author name, DOI, title, keywords), 'search_type' with enum values and default, and 'max_results' with default and max constraint. It adds comprehensive meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameters fully understandable.

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 as 'Search PubMed database for publications,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_authors' or 'search_works,' which appear to have overlapping functionality. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implied usage guidance through examples showing different search types (author, DOI, keywords), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_authors' or 'search_works.' There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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