Fetch papers from your local literature database that were ingested after a given ISO timestamp. Use to track new research added since a specific date.
Papers ingested after an ISO timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the ingestion-time filter but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, default result count, or whether results are metadata-only or include content, all of which matter for a feed-style retrieval tool.
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?
A single front-loaded fragment with no filler; every word contributes. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that shortfall is more a completeness issue than a structural one.
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 described, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an unmentioned limit default, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently beyond the basic filter.
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, yet it only clarifies that 'since' is an ISO timestamp. The 'limit' parameter (default 50) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 names a concrete resource (papers) and a precise filter (ingested after an ISO timestamp), which is enough for an agent to distinguish this retrieval tool from siblings like similar_to or search_fulltext. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' and never references any sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_seeds, search_local, or must_read, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line filter description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.