Search dblp for computer science publications using query, year range, and tech-only filters to retrieve matching paper metadata and results.
Search dblp only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Max results. | |
| query | Yes | Search query. | |
| year_to | No | Latest publication year. | |
| tech_only | No | Restrict to tech/computer-science. | |
| year_from | No | Earliest publication year. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Search dblp only' with no information about read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, response format, or any side effects. The description is entirely silent on behavioral traits, 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear. While extremely brief, it is appropriately concise for a tool with a simple function, though it could benefit from a second sentence about usage.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is just 'Search dblp only,' providing no information about return values, pagination, result sorting, or any operational details. An agent cannot fully understand how to call this tool correctly or what to expect in the response.
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 description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't enrich it.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('dblp'), and the word 'only' signals that this tool is scoped exclusively to dblp, distinguishing it from the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_scopus, search_arxiv). However, it doesn't explain what dblp is or elaborate on the scope, so it's clear but slightly minimal.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools. It only says 'Search dblp only,' which implies exclusivity but does not state conditions, alternatives, or when to prefer another search. No prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.