Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mesa-clm

mesa-clm

by idss-mesa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mesa_datacite_export

Export DataCite AVUs as DataCite 4.x XML for DOI registration or REST JSON for dataset metadata interchange.

Instructions

Export DataCite AVUs as a DataCite 4.x XML (for DOI registration) or REST JSON document.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "avus": "<avus>"
    },
    "name": "mesa_datacite_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
avusYesCanonical-naming DataCite AVUs from a path.
formatNoxml

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two output serializations and the DataCite schema version. However, it omits whether the operation is side-effect free, what happens with malformed or non-canonical AVUs, and whether validation occurs during export.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical adds the use case compactly. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter transformation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry everything. It covers the output format dimension adequately but leaves the agent without guidance on sequencing with sibling validate/template tools or on failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: the avus parameter is documented in-schema but format has no description. The description compensates partially by naming both xml and json outputs, matching the enum, but adds no detail on how AVU attribute/value/unit map into the emitted document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Export") and resource ("DataCite AVUs") plus the two concrete output artifacts (DataCite 4.x XML, REST JSON), which is far more informative than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like mesa_datacite_validate or mesa_datacite_template, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical "(for DOI registration)" implies a use case for the XML format, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether to validate first with mesa_datacite_validate or to prefer this over mesa_datacite_template.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools