mendeley_search_catalogSearch Mendeley's global catalog to find papers missing from your library, returning catalog identifiers and summary metadata for each result.
Search Mendeley's global catalog for papers that may not yet exist in the user's library and return catalog identifiers plus summary metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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 states that the search targets the global catalog rather than the library and explicitly discloses the return payload: catalog identifiers plus summary metadata. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only search operation.
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 zero filler. It packs in the action, scope, and output shape efficiently.
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?
With an output schema present and only two simple parameters, the description covers the key semantic context: global catalog scope, not user-library scope, and the kind of result returned. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit routing distinction against mendeley_search_library.
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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining query syntax or limit behavior. The verb 'Search...' loosely implies the query parameter is a text search, but the limit parameter is left entirely to inference from its name and default.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search Mendeley's global catalog' and clearly scopes the tool to papers that may not yet exist in the user's library. This also differentiates it from the sibling mendeley_search_library without needing to open any schemas.
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 phrase 'papers that may not yet exist in the user's library' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when searching beyond the user's library. It does not explicitly name mendeley_search_library as the alternative or list exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.