annotate_dois_bibtexConvert DOI lists to BibTeX entries via CrossRef content negotiation. Use the output for citation metadata enrichment in Wikipedia editing.
BibTeX entries for DOIs (CrossRef content negotiation). Returns {"bibtex_entries": [...]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi_list | Yes | DOIs (max 200). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden. It discloses the source (CrossRef content negotiation) and the return shape, but says nothing about external network access, rate limits, failure behavior for unresolved DOIs, or the 200-item limit's consequences (though that is covered in the schema).
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the return shape; no padding. It is terse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than excessive verbosity.
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 explaining return values is not required (and the return note is mild redundancy). What is missing is guidance on selection among the annotate_dois_* siblings and any behavioral caveats for an external-lookup tool.
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 100% and the single doi_list parameter is documented there, including the max-200 constraint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a concrete output and resource: BibTeX entries for DOIs, sourced via CrossRef content negotiation. That source detail helps separate it from annotate_dois_europmc, though it does not explicitly name siblings like annotate_dois_crossref, leaving some ambiguity in the annotate_dois_* family.
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 statement of when to choose this tool over annotate_dois_crossref or annotate_dois_europmc, and no prerequisites or conditions given. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the parenthetical source.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.