Retrieve the full record for a publication ID, including title, venue, year, and summary, to ground answers in citable publication details.
Return the full record (title, venue, year, summary) for one publication id such as 'p3' (JSON).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publication_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' strongly signals a read-only retrieval and it notes JSON output plus the fields returned, but it does not mention behavior for missing/invalid ids or any permission/error characteristics.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It communicates the action, scope, example input, and output format efficiently.
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 the description does not need to fully document return values, and it still names the main record fields. For a simple single-id getter, the main omission is error or not-found behavior.
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 for the single parameter. It does so by identifying the publication id and giving a concrete example ('p3'), though it does not specify id format rules or edge cases.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full record') scoped to 'one publication id', and the singular phrasing distinguishes it from the list/search publication siblings. The example id ('p3') makes the input expectation concrete.
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 implies when to use it by saying it takes one publication id and returns the full record, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over list_publications or search_publications or state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.