Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
journal-scout-mcp

journal-scout-mcp

by mahdyarief
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_author_profile

Fetch a Scopus author profile by author ID to obtain publication history, affiliations, and citation metrics for research analysis.

Instructions

Scopus author profile.

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": {
      "author_id": "<author_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_author_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
author_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or what the response looks like. It only states the resource name, which 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.

Conciseness1/5

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

While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single phrase does not earn its place; it provides no actionable information. It is not front-loaded with key details because there are no details at all.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is still completely inadequate. It fails to mention what the tool returns, any prerequisites, or how the author_id should be structured. The tool is practically unusable from the description alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what author_id is, its format, or how it's used. The description provides zero information about the parameter, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding beyond the raw type 'string'.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a bare noun phrase 'Scopus author profile' that essentially restates the tool name without a verb or action. It doesn't state what the tool does (e.g., 'Retrieve the Scopus profile for a given author ID'), and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like scival_author_lookup, which likely also provide author profiles. This is closer to a label than a purpose statement.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or mention sibling tools. The agent is left to infer the use case entirely.

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