annotate_dois_europmcEnrich DOI lists with EuropePMC metadata—PMID/PMCID, title, authors, journal, year, citation count, and open-access status—one row per DOI.
Annotate DOIs through EuropePMC: PMID/PMCID, title, authors, journal, year, citation_count, is_open_access. One row per input DOI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi_list | Yes | DOIs such as "10.1038/nature02260" (max 200). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output fields and the row-per-DOI shape, but says nothing about rate limits, error handling, or what happens to DOIs that resolve to no record — meaningful gaps for a network-backed annotation tool.
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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with purpose and output shape. Every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (PMID/PMCID, title, authors, journal, year, citation_count, is_open_access) is valuable and largely fills that role. It stops short of explaining failure behavior for unresolved DOIs, which is the only notable gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter including the example DOI format and the max 200 limit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 specific verb (Annotate), resource (DOIs), and source (EuropePMC), plus the enrichment fields returned. The source name implicitly differentiates it from annotate_dois_crossref and annotate_dois_bibtex, but the description never makes that distinction explicit.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is provided. The sibling list contains two direct competitors (annotate_dois_crossref, annotate_dois_bibtex), and the agent is given no signal for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.