inspirehep-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'search' entails like pagination). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, though it lacks depth due to its brevity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), annotations cover behavioral traits, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description doesn't explain parameters or usage context. For a search tool with 1 parameter (though nested with multiple fields), the description is incomplete, failing to guide on input semantics or sibling differentiation.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters (e.g., what 'author' expects, how to format names, or details on other inputs like 'limit' or 'year'). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Search INSPIRE-HEP literature by author' clearly states the action (search) and resource (INSPIRE-HEP literature), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like inspirehep_search_by_fulltext or inspirehep_search_by_title. It doesn't specify what 'by author' means operationally (e.g., author names vs. IDs).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (inspirehep_search_by_fulltext, inspirehep_search_by_title). The description implies it's for author-based searches, but there's no explicit comparison or context for choosing among search methods, nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, or what 'full text' search entails), but does not contradict annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It earns its place by succinctly conveying the core functionality.

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 has annotations covering safety and behavior, an output schema exists, and the description is concise but clear, it is reasonably complete. However, it could better address parameter usage or search scope to fully compensate for low schema coverage.

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%, but the description mentions 'full text' which aligns with the 'fulltext' parameter. However, it does not explain other parameters (e.g., limit, sort_by_citation) or add meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. With 0% coverage, baseline is lower, but the description partially compensates by hinting at the key parameter.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('INSPIRE-HEP literature') with the method ('by full text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that search by author or title, though it could be more specific about what 'full text' encompasses (e.g., paper body vs metadata).

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 usage context through 'by full text' versus siblings' 'by author' or 'by title', but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is clear 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.

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or result format details. However, it doesn't contradict annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Search INSPIRE-HEP literature by title'), making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 rich input schema with full parameter descriptions, annotations covering key behavioral traits, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by adding usage guidelines relative to sibling tools, but overall it provides adequate context for a search operation.

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%, but the input schema includes detailed descriptions for all parameters (title, year, limit, sort_by_citation, large_collaboration). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides comprehensive documentation, establishing a baseline of 3.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('INSPIRE-HEP literature'), specifying the search field ('by title'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that search by author or fulltext, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them in the description text itself.

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 like inspirehep_search_by_author or inspirehep_search_by_fulltext. It lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information.

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