Search Scopus for scholarly articles by query, applying optional filters for publication year range, maximum results, and technology-focused content.
Search scopus 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this operation is read-only, how many results are expected, whether pagination or rate limits apply, or what the response structure looks like. 'Search' implies a read operation but nothing more.
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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no output schema. It does not earn its place as a complete definition because it omits essential context.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values and selection context, but it only names the target database. An agent gets enough to know this searches Scopus, but not enough to understand what a successful invocation returns or when this is the preferred search tool.
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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter explanations. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, but the schema itself covers all five parameters.
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 specifies a concrete action ('search') and a concrete resource ('Scopus'), and the word 'only' hints that this tool targets Scopus specifically rather than all sources. However, it reads almost like a restatement of the tool name and gives no detail about what kind of records are searched or what kind of results are returned.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_arxiv, search_openalex, or search_all. The word 'only' implies a limitation to Scopus, but there is no explicit condition or comparison to inform tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.