OpenAlex Research MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't describe what that includes, response format, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and scope. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, response structure, error handling, or how this differs from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 completely. The description adds minimal value by listing the supported entity types (which the enum already specifies) and mentioning ID formats, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the structured schema.

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: 'Get detailed information about any OpenAlex entity by ID' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OpenAlex entity'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_work' by mentioning multiple entity types, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'get_author_works' or 'get_work_citations'.

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. It mentions supported entity types but doesn't explain when to choose this over specific sibling tools like 'get_work', 'search_authors', or 'get_author_works', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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