export_bibtexExport BibTeX citations for ADS papers in ADS journal format to add references to LaTeX or Quarto documents.
Export BibTeX citations for one or more papers, exactly as ADS formats them (journal macros, volume, pages, DOI, eprint). Useful for adding references to LaTeX/Quarto documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bibcodes | Yes | List of ADS bibcodes to export |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Input schema / properties / bibcodes / minItemsAdded value: +1v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the output fidelity (ADS-style journal macros, volume, pages, DOI, eprint) — meaningful since there is no output schema. It stops short of covering size limits or error behavior for invalid bibcodes.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and its format guarantee lead, and the use case follows. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 one-parameter, read-only export with no output schema, the description supplies both the format of the returned citations and a use case, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only error/limit behavior for large or invalid bibcode lists is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described there. The description's 'one or more papers' reinforces the array/multi-value semantics but adds no format, syntax, or validity detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 verb (export) and resource (BibTeX citations for one or more papers), plus a distinguishing quality claim: 'exactly as ADS formats them (journal macros, volume, pages, DOI, eprint)'. No sibling is named or contrasted, but the operation is naturally unique among the search/get/library siblings, so the intent is unmistakable.
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 sentence 'Useful for adding references to LaTeX/Quarto documents' gives a downstream use context but no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., that bibcodes typically come from search_papers). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.