Record or update a paper's feedback label (relevant, not_relevant, must_read) in your project literature database, with optional notes, to refine search and ranking.
Upsert feedback: relevant | not_relevant | must_read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| paper_id | Yes |
| 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 says 'upsert' and lists labels, but omits whether existing feedback is overwritten, permission/auth needs, validation behavior, or what happens if paper_id is invalid.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity, however, reflects under-specification as much as deliberate conciseness.
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 not be explained. But for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema descriptions, the missing paper_id/notes semantics and usage context leave it substantially incomplete.
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 supplies the label value domain, which is useful, but says nothing about the required paper_id or the optional notes parameter.
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 action, 'Upsert feedback', and enumerates the allowed labels relevant | not_relevant | must_read. It broadly distinguishes this from generic sibling tools, but does not address overlap with the sibling tool must_read.
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?
Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It does not explain how this relates to the sibling must_read tool or when a caller should choose this over other feedback/seed tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.