Attach a local PDF to a reference to supply paywalled papers or replace an incorrect match, ensuring citation checks use the correct source document.
Attach a local PDF to a reference (for paywalled papers or to replace a wrong match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| pdf_path | Yes | Local path to the PDF for this reference. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies overwriting via 'replace a wrong match' but does not state whether an existing attachment is destroyed, what permissions are required, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant disclosure gap.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the usage context trailing in parentheses. Every clause earns its place; nothing is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and use cases. However, with no annotations it leaves behavioral edges (overwrite behavior, error cases, auth) unspecified, so it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 50%: pdf_path is documented in the schema, but key is not. The description's phrase 'to a reference' implicitly maps key to a reference identifier, partially compensating, but it adds no format or constraint detail. A 3 reflects the partial bridging of the coverage gap.
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 specific verb (attach), resource (local PDF), and target (a reference). This is a distinct action from any sibling tool like fetch_sources or record_verdict, so an agent can identify it. No explicit sibling differentiation is given, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 parenthetical names two concrete situations for use: paywalled papers and replacing a wrong match. That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.