get_paper_detailRetrieves complete CNKI paper details from a search result label, helping AI agents read full metadata and page information for citation or analysis.
获取 CNKI 论文详情页的完整信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper | Yes | 论文标签（从 search_cnki 返回的 label 字段） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.32.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic fetch intent. It does not say whether a live CNKI session or login is required (siblings like renew_session and get_login_status imply session-dependent tooling), whether a browser window is opened, or what 'complete information' covers.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why the behavioral gaps exist.
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 return values need not be explained, and the parameter is fully covered by the schema. However, with no annotations and no differentiation from several closely related siblings, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct tool selection.
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% and the single parameter is well documented in the schema, including that the label comes from search_cnki. The description adds no additional semantics, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource: retrieving the complete information of a CNKI paper detail page. The intent is unambiguous, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as read_paper_fulltext, get_paper_citations, or get_paper_bibtex, which also return paper-level data.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus read_paper_fulltext, read_paper_pdf, get_paper_citations, or get_paper_bibtex. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, so the agent must infer the choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.