OpenAlex Research MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'per_page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what constitutes 'leading institutions'. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function. The first sentence states the core purpose and filters, while the second adds context about finding leading institutions. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit separation of primary and secondary functions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, search functionality) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., institution objects with fields), how results are ranked, or error conditions. For a search tool without structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the response format and limitations.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filters for research output, citations, and geographical location', which loosely maps to some parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as searching for academic institutions with specific filters (research output, citations, geographical location) and finding leading institutions. It uses specific verbs ('search for', 'find') and identifies the resource ('academic institutions'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_authors' or 'search_sources', which prevents a perfect 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_authors' or 'search_sources' for different search contexts, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'find leading institutions in specific areas' is vague and doesn't offer concrete usage scenarios.

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