PaperGraph MCP

workspace_import_doi_candidate

Import a selected root DOI PDF only after explicit confirmation, without downloading external references. Provider identity is evidence, not proof of PDF contents.

Instructions

Import a selected root DOI PDF only after explicit review/confirmation.

This is not permission to download newly discovered external references. Candidate provider identity is evidence, not a verification of PDF contents.

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": {
      "doi": "<doi>",
      "candidate_id": "<candidate_id>"
    },
    "name": "workspace_import_doi_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	Yes
`confirmed`	No
`candidate_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully warns that candidate provider identity is 'evidence, not a verification of PDF contents' and reiterates the confirmation gate. It does not state what happens when confirmed is false, whether the import is idempotent, or what auth it needs.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the gate condition. The fragments are slightly staccato but every sentence adds a guardrail rather than filler.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage for a 3-param mutation tool. The description supplies guardrails but omits parameter meaning and any notion of the return/effect, leaving real gaps for an agent to act on.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description documents none of the three parameters. 'Explicit review/confirmation' loosely hints at the confirmed flag, but doi and candidate_id are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ("Import a selected root DOI PDF") with a scope qualifier ("only after explicit review/confirmation"). It distinguishes itself from the many add/load tools by the 'root DOI PDF' framing, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides a usage condition ("only after explicit review/confirmation") and an explicit exclusion ("This is not permission to download newly discovered external references"). However, it never names the alternative tool an agent should use instead, leaving routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server