Search scholarly papers and retrieve metadata, abstracts, and citation data from Semantic Scholar using keyword queries and optional year or tech-only filters.
Search semanticscholar 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Search' reasonably implies a read-only lookup and 'only' defines the source boundary, but nothing is said about result format, pagination, filtering effects, or API behavior, so transparency is minimal.
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 sentence is short and front-loaded, and it avoids padding. However, most of it restates the tool name; only 'only' contributes new scope information, making this closer to under-specification than to well-structured concision.
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?
In a context with 17 siblings, a non-trivial 5-parameter schema, and no output schema or annotations, this description is completely inadequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. It neither explains return values nor the specific use cases that distinguish it from the other search tools.
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 though the tool description itself explains none of the parameters. The description adds no new meaning about query, count, date filters, or tech_only beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clear verb ('search') and a specific resource ('semanticscholar'), and the word 'only' signals that this tool is intentionally restricted to that source. It does not fully define what kind of records are searched (papers, authors, citations), so it falls short of the strongest sibling-differentiating statements.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over the many search siblings such as search_scopus, search_arxiv, search_openalex, or search_all. 'Only' implies a source restriction but does not state a use case, prerequisite, or exclusion condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.