Check for duplicate records by exact title or DOI. No result doesn't guarantee no duplicates, but helps identify potential duplicates before submission.
Chercher les notices au titre exact ou au DOI. Aucun résultat ne garantit pas l'absence de doublon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | No | ||
| title | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the caveat about false negatives, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like result limits or return format, so it adds only modest value.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat following. No wasted words; 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?
For a read-only search with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a key caveat. However, it omits details like return format, pagination, or whether both title and DOI can be combined, which an agent might need for correct invocation.
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 mentions 'exact title or DOI', clarifying that both parameters are search keys and that matching is exact. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not explain parameter formats, defaults, or edge cases, so it only partially compensates.
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 clearly states the tool searches for records ('notices') by exact title or DOI, which is a specific verb+resource. It implies a duplicate-checking purpose but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_publications, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.
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 provides a usage caveat ('no result does not guarantee absence of duplicates') but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for duplicate verification, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.