MinerU MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support, which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the results contain. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation or complex read operation without more context.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key behavioral note on pagination. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and potential complexity in batch processing. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but misses details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'batch_id' comes from 'mineru_batch' and that pagination is supported via 'limit' and 'offset'. This matches the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, with minimal value added by the description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'batch results', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mineru_status' or 'mineru_batch', which might have overlapping functionality. The mention of 'pagination for large batches' adds useful context but doesn't fully distinguish it from potential alternatives.

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 implies usage for retrieving results from batches, particularly large ones requiring pagination, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'mineru_status' or 'mineru_batch'. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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