IEEE Xplore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: authentication requirements for paywalled content and output truncation at ~50K characters, which are critical for agent decision-making. It doesn't cover all possible behaviors (e.g., error handling), but adds substantial value beyond basic purpose.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential constraints and behavioral notes in three concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, key behaviors, and output constraints. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit mention of error cases), but it provides sufficient context for effective agent use.

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 the schema already documents the 'article_number' parameter. The description implies the parameter's role but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve the full text'), resource ('IEEE paper'), and key constraint ('by article number'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle citations, details, or searches. It provides precise differentiation without being vague or tautological.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Works for Open Access articles') and when-not/alternatives ('For paywalled articles, set IEEE_AUTH_TOKEN env var'), providing clear context and prerequisites. This directly addresses usage scenarios without leaving room for ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—no information about response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., citation counts format, potential fields), error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation's results and limitations.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (article_number and doi). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('citation counts for an IEEE paper'), specifying it includes both papers and patents. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper_details' which might also provide citation information, so it lacks explicit 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_paper_details' or 'search_papers'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between similar tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (author affiliations, abstract, etc.) and that it's a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specifics on returns. It uses two efficient sentences with zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is adequate for a read-only tool but lacks details on error cases, response structure, or limitations. It covers the basics but could be more complete for agent usage.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds that these are identifiers for retrieving metadata, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get detailed metadata'), resource ('a single IEEE paper'), and scope ('by article number or DOI'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_full_text' (which likely retrieves content) and 'search_papers' (which searches multiple papers).

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 usage for retrieving detailed metadata of a single paper, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_author' or 'get_paper_citations'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions this is a 'convenience wrapper' which implies it's a specialized version of search_papers, but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (paper metadata? full results?), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important contextual information about its relationship to sibling tools. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the tool's purpose and relationship to siblings well, but lacks information about what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral characteristics. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more complete context for effective tool use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it only mentions 'author as the primary filter' which is already clear from the required parameter. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('IEEE Xplore for papers by a specific author'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'search_papers' by noting it's a 'convenience wrapper' with author as the primary filter. This provides excellent differentiation from alternatives.

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 clear context by stating this is a 'convenience wrapper around search_papers with author as the primary filter,' which helps understand when to use this versus the more general search_papers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to other siblings like search_by_publication, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions being a 'convenience wrapper,' it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond parameters, error conditions, or what format results return. For a search tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence states what it does, second sentence clarifies its relationship to sibling tool and primary parameter. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the purpose and relationship to alternatives well, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like result format, limitations, or error handling that would be important for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning 'publication_title as the primary filter' which is already clear from the required parameter and schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 IEEE Xplore for papers in a specific publication, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_papers (general search) and search_by_author (author-focused). It specifies 'journal/conference' scope and mentions it's a convenience wrapper with publication_title as primary filter.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Search IEEE Xplore for papers in a specific publication') and provides clear alternatives ('Convenience wrapper around search_papers with publication_title as the primary filter'), distinguishing it from the more general search_papers tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (search with filters) and what it returns (metadata, abstracts, links), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with 17 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is front-loaded and efficient: two sentences that cover purpose, capabilities, and return values without waste. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct information (search scope and output).

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, limits) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe return format more thoroughly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning Boolean operators and filters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search IEEE Xplore for papers'), resource ('papers'), and scope ('full-text search with Boolean operators and multiple filters'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_by_author' or 'search_by_publication' by emphasizing comprehensive search capabilities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_author' or 'search_by_publication' is provided. The description mentions filters but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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