Find recent papers on any topic, sorted by date. Optionally filter results to high-impact journals for focused research.
Find recent/trending papers on a topic. Sorted by date, with optional filtering to high-impact journals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to look back | |
| topic | Yes | Topic or search term | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results | |
| highImpactOnly | No | Filter to high-impact journals only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context about ordering by date and an optional high-impact filter, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or the meaning of 'trending.' This is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and key ordering/filtering behavior are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main ambiguity is the term 'trending' and the lack of an explicit output description, but the invocation path is clear.
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 four parameters. The description reinforces the topic parameter and the highImpactOnly filter but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific action—find recent/trending papers—and a clear resource (papers by topic), plus key behavior (sorted by date, high-impact filtering). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_pubmed or search_europepmc, so it misses the top score.
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 phrase 'recent/trending' implies a time-sensitive search use case, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling search tools or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.