Query CNKI for bibliographic records by keyword or field, with paging, sorting, year and source filters; returns titles, authors, journals, citation counts, abstracts and DOIs read-only.
Search a channel for bibliographic records. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | relevance | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| channel | No | cnki | |
| year_to | No | ||
| year_from | No | ||
| source_types | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that the operation is read-only. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, default channel selection, or how sorting and filtering affect results. The single safety note is useful but insufficient for full 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, and contains no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves important details unstated, so it is concise but not fully optimized for a tool of this complexity.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, so the description must supply substantial context. It explains the basic purpose and read-only nature but omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, defaults, and sibling differentiation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input-side context remains inadequate.
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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that a query and channel exist. It does not explain the required query syntax, channel options or default (cnki), sort enum values, year filters, source types, pagination, or limits. For an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is a major omission.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search a channel for bibliographic records.' It identifies the scope (a channel) and the object (bibliographic records), so an agent can understand the core action. It does not differentiate from siblings like detail, export, or status, so it falls short of a 5.
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 search tool versus sibling tools such as detail, export, or status. 'Read-only' describes a safety trait, not a usage condition or alternative-selection rule. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.