Scholar MCP Server

autocomplete_authors_tool

Resolve ambiguous author names by autocompleting with OpenAlex to identify the correct author ID for accurate work tracking.

Instructions

Rapidly autocomplete author names via OpenAlex to find the correct OpenAlex ID. Useful for disambiguation before tracking works.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "autocomplete_authors_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions rapid autocomplete via OpenAlex but does not disclose specifics such as what happens on no match, multiple suggestions, rate limits, or authentication needs. Minimal behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple autocomplete tool with output schema present, the description covers purpose, source, and use case. However, it lacks parameter descriptions, which are important. Mostly complete but not perfect.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description does not mention the name or limit parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. This is a significant gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it rapidly autocompletes author names via OpenAlex to find the correct OpenAlex ID, and positions it for disambiguation before tracking works. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_authors_tool or retrieve_author_works_tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Useful for disambiguation before tracking works,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.