Deduplicate DOI, arXiv, and URL citations without fetching documents. No signup required.
Deduplicate DOI, arXiv and URL citations without fetching documents. No signup. Does not prove source independence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it works locally without fetching documents, requires no signup, and explicitly states it does not prove source independence – a nontrivial caveat. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent set expectations.
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?
Three short clauses, each carrying distinct information: the core action, a key operational detail, and a limitation. No filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. This is an exemplary concise description.
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 description covers the core operation, key constraints, and a limitation, which is adequate for a simple, read-only, single-parameter tool. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., whether it returns a deduplicated list or a count), and with no output schema, that gap remains. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate omission.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that the 'sources' array should contain DOI, arXiv, and URL citations, which is helpful. However, it omits format details (e.g., DOI syntax, URL normalization) that would help ensure correct input. The description provides partial semantics but not full coverage.
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 specific verb ('Deduplicate') and a concrete object ('DOI, arXiv and URL citations'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the scope is clear enough to be distinguished from the other listed tools, which are about tasks, rooms, messages, etc.
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 gives useful operational constraints ('without fetching documents', 'No signup') and a limitation ('Does not prove source independence'), but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The absence of explicit routing to a sibling or exclusion condition leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.