Add or update a seed paper in your project literature database using an s2_id or DOI; title_query returns matching candidates to pick from.
Add or update a seed paper in the DB. Prefer s2_id or doi; title_query returns candidates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| s2_id | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| arxiv_id | No | ||
| paper_id | No | ||
| title_query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the upsert semantics (add OR update), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, conflict behavior when a seed already exists, or which fields can be updated versus only set on creation.
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, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The second sentence is telegraphic enough to be slightly cryptic, but nothing is padding.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no stated conflict/permission behavior, the description is too thin for a mutation tool. An agent would have to guess which fields are meaningful and what happens on a duplicate seed.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches s2_id, doi, and title_query (partially — it never explains that title_query is a lookup rather than an identifier). arxiv_id, paper_id, notes, and enabled are entirely unexplained, and no format examples (DOI syntax, S2 ID shape) are given.
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?
States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Add or update a seed paper in the DB.' The upsert nature is conveyed, and it is distinguishable from siblings like list_seeds or resolve_seed. 'In the DB' is slightly vague about which store, but the intent is clear.
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?
'Prefer s2_id or doi; title_query returns candidates' gives real guidance on identifier precedence, which is the main decision an agent faces here. However, it never says when to use this tool versus siblings such as resolve_seed, list_seeds, or set_seed_enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.