Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PaperGraph MCP

PaperGraph MCP

by lotchuazzz-crypto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

workspace_create_reference_expansion

Save an approved finite reference-expansion policy. Define root paper IDs and optional policy to control how references expand, without searching or importing.

Instructions

Save an approved finite expansion policy. Creation does not search or import.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "root_paper_ids": "<root_paper_ids>"
    },
    "name": "workspace_create_reference_expansion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyNo
root_paper_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful negative ('does not search or import') and implies an 'approved' prerequisite, but omits side effects, validation, idempotency, persistence, or response behavior. For a state-changing create tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the clarifying negative behavior follows immediately. The description is appropriately sized and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide enough context to invoke the tool correctly, but it does not explain inputs, lifecycle relationship, or expected results. The minimal text leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description names no parameters. root_paper_ids and policy remain unexplained, including requiredness and policy shape. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('approved finite expansion policy'), and clarifies that creation does not search or import. This gives a reasonably specific purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling update tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. 'Creation does not search or import' implies a boundary against search/import tools, but the agent must infer when this tool should be chosen over related expansion lifecycle tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools