Find Nobel Prize winners by name, award year, or category, and return matching records with an adjustable result limit.
Search Nobel laureates by name, year, or category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Laureate name to search. | |
| year | No | Award year. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10). | |
| category | No | Category code: che, eco, lit, pea, phy, med. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about result ordering, how limit interacts with results, whether searches are AND/OR across facets, or what a result looks like.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn a top score given what it omits.
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 schema fully documents parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least state that this is a safe read operation and how paging works. As written it is minimally adequate for a 4-parameter 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 all four parameters (including category codes and the limit default) are already documented in the schema. The description restates three of them without adding format or behavior detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource (search Nobel laureates) and enumerates the searchable facets: name, year, category. It does not differentiate from the sibling nobel_prizes, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the sibling nobel_prizes. The word 'search' implies a lookup context but nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.