Fetch a submission by its ID to retrieve article details and a trimmed list of publication versions.
Fetch the details of one submission (article) by its ID.
Includes a trimmed list of its publications (versions). The full
content of one version is returned by get_publication, and
review rounds by get_submission_reviews.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journal | No | ||
| submission | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavior. It conveys a read-only fetch action, and the phrase 'trimmed list' warns the agent that the result deliberately excludes full version content. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for this simple read operation the behavior is reasonably transparent.
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?
Three sentences deliver the purpose, the return limitation, and routing to related tools with no fluff. The important need-to-know details are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does useful work by outlining the rough return shape and pointing to the siblings for the omitted content. However, it still leaves the optional `journal` parameter unexplained and does not describe what fields or attributes are included beyond 'details', so an agent could still need more information.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the main required parameter as an 'ID'; the optional `journal` parameter is never mentioned or given a role. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and only titles available, this leaves an agent guessing about correct invocation.
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 an explicit verb ('Fetch') and resource ('submission (article)') by its ID, and it distinguishes itself from the related `get_publication` and `get_submission_reviews` tools by clarifying that it returns only a trimmed publications list. This is immediately understandable and not a restatement of the tool name.
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?
The description implies clear selection criteria: use this tool for submission-level details and a trimmed list of versions, turn to `get_publication` for full version content, and to `get_submission_reviews` for review rounds. It lacks an explicit conditional such as 'use this only when you need...', but the sibling routing is still clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.