Europe PMC Literature Search MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: performance characteristics ('超高性能版本', '10-15倍速度提升'), constraints ('最多支持20个DOI同时处理' - supports up to 20 DOIs), data handling ('自动去重和信息完整性检查' - automatic deduplication and integrity checks), and API usage ('使用Europe PMC的批量查询API'). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers most essential aspects.

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 (功能说明, 参数说明, 返回值说明, 使用场景, 性能特点), but it's verbose. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the performance metrics section is detailed but repetitive). It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but the length slightly reduces efficiency.

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 (batch processing, performance optimization) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is highly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, behavioral traits, performance advantages, and use cases. With no annotations, it provides all necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 must compensate. It provides clear parameter semantics: 'dois: 必需，DOI列表，最多支持20个DOI同时处理' (required, DOI list, supports up to 20 DOIs) with an example, and 'email: 可选，联系邮箱，用于获得更高的API访问限制' (optional, contact email for higher API access limits). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond the example.

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: '批量补全多个DOI的参考文献信息' (batch enrich multiple DOI references). It specifies the verb ('补全' - enrich/complement), resource ('参考文献信息' - reference information), and scope ('多个DOI' - multiple DOIs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_references_by_doi' by emphasizing batch processing and performance advantages.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: '适合大规模文献数据处理' (suitable for large-scale literature data processing), '比逐个查询快10-15倍' (10-15 times faster than individual queries), and provides specific use cases like '大规模文献数据分析' (large-scale literature data analysis) and '批量文献信息补全' (batch literature information completion). It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools like 'get_references_by_doi' for individual queries.

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