Get full-text excerpts from matching literature in paginated chunks, specifying offset and character limit. Read-only access maintains legal OA and institutional constraints.
返回匹配文献的分页全文（默认 10000 字符，上限 20000，只读）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| limit_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses read-only, pagination, default 10000 characters, and maximum 20000 characters, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the schema. However, it does not explain offset semantics, query syntax, error behavior, or how pagination proceeds when results exceed the limit. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides only partial transparency.
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?
A single, compact sentence with no filler. Every clause adds useful information: the action, the pagination, the default/max limits, and the read-only guarantee. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits essential details about query syntax and offset mechanics, which are necessary for correct invocation. It is adequate for a simple retrieval call but not fully complete.
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 adds meaning only for limit_chars (default and max), but leaves query vaguely defined as 'matching literature' without format or syntax, and offset is merely implied by 'paginated' without clarifying its unit (characters vs. pages) or behavior.
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?
Description states a specific action (returns paginated full text) and resource (matching literature), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like library_search_metadata (metadata) and library_get_pdf_path (PDF paths). The verb '返回' and object '全文' make the purpose 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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the read-only full-text behavior implies it is for retrieving content rather than metadata or file paths. The usage context is inferable from the name and description, yet there is no guidance on exclusions or relationships with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.