get_library_papersRetrieve all papers from a specified NASA ADS library, including paper details for each collection item. Use a library ID from list_libraries to inspect a collection's contents.
Get all papers from a specific library. Returns paper details for papers in the specified collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | Yes | Library ID (from list_libraries) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Input schema / properties / library_id / titleAdded value: +"Library Id"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"get_library_papersArguments"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the result covers 'all items', without saying whether the list is paginated, how large it can be, or what 'component details' contain. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely restates the first ('all items' vs 'items in the specified collection'), so it earns only partial credit.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the shape of returned 'component details' and whether results are bounded or paginated. It flags that details are returned but leaves the return contract underspecified for a bulk-listing tool.
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 already documents its provenance ('from list_libraries'), so the description has no room to add meaning and adds none. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get all library items') and scopes it to a 'single library', so the agent knows this is a full listing rather than a search. It does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling search_papers, which also returns items, leaving some ambiguity about when a plain listing beats a filtered search.
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?
Usage is only implied: the parenthetical 'from list_libraries' in the schema hints at a list-then-fetch workflow, but the description itself never states when to use this tool versus search_papers or get_collection_contents. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.