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 a safe, open-ended search. The description adds context about being 'optimized' and 'streamlined,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, performance characteristics, or what 'optimized' entails. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a brief purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. It's appropriately sized, though the parameter details are somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, but the opening could be more front-loaded with key usage context.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the description provides comprehensive parameter semantics. With output schema present, it needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. It lacks usage guidelines, but otherwise addresses most contextual needs for a search tool.

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 8 parameters, including optional status, defaults, and semantics (e.g., 'Search query text,' 'Author name filter,' 'Search mode'). It clarifies enums for search_type and boolean logic for peer_reviewed_only, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'searching works' with the 'Optimized MCP tool wrapper' context. It specifies the resource ('works') and verb ('searching'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_authors or search_pubmed. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from retrieve_author_works, which might also retrieve works.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like retrieve_author_works or search_pubmed, nor does it specify scenarios where this optimized search is preferred over other methods. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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