Scholar MCP Server

search_author_by_orcid_tool

Look up an author's profile using their ORCID identifier. Get their h-index, works count, and affiliations.

Instructions

Look up an author directly by their ORCID identifier. Accepts raw ORCID (e.g. 0000-0002-9322-3515) or full URL (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9322-3515). Returns the full author profile including h-index, works count, and affiliations.

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": {
      "orcid": "<orcid>"
    },
    "name": "search_author_by_orcid_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`orcid`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full author profile with specific fields (h-index, works count, affiliations), which is informative for a read operation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by input format and output summary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single parameter, clear input format, output schema existence, and the description listing key return fields, the description is complete and does not leave gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (empty property description), but the tool description adds crucial format guidance: accepts raw ORCID or full URL. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'author directly by their ORCID identifier'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that search by other criteria.

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?

It explains when to use (when you have an ORCID) and provides input format options, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent.

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