Resolve blocked external references by searching scholarly metadata providers and returning candidate matches for a paper.
Search scholarly metadata providers for a blocked external reference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | ||
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| providers | No | ||
| blocked_id | Yes | ||
| max_candidates | No | ||
| resolver_version | No | deterministic_v2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Input schema / properties / max_candidates / minimumAdded value: +1v1.1.5Input schema / properties / resolver_versionAdded value: +{
+ "default": "deterministic_v2",
+ "title": "Resolver Version",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not clarify whether this is a pure read or a stateful operation (the 'refresh' default suggests caching), what provider/rate-limit behavior to expect, or whether searches are persisted (a sibling lists searches), leaving the agent to guess.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly the cause of the other gaps rather than a virtue.
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?
For a six-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, one sentence is insufficient. Concepts like the meaning of a 'blocked' reference, caching/refresh semantics, resolver_version behavior, and how results are returned are all absent.
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?
Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. 'Scholarly metadata providers' loosely gestures at the providers arg and 'blocked external reference' at blocked_id, but there is no meaning added for refresh, max_candidates, resolver_version, or the required ids.
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 clear verb+resource: 'Search scholarly metadata providers for a blocked external reference.' An agent can grasp the domain, but the description never distinguishes this from close siblings like workspace_resolve_external_reference or workspace_list_external_reference_searches, so the specific role in the resolution pipeline is ambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The phrase 'for a blocked external reference' hints at a prerequisite condition (the reference must already be blocked), but it never says when to prefer this over resolve/list siblings or what to do after searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.