get_doaj_article_by_doiRetrieve a DOAJ-indexed article's metadata by entering its DOI. Get publication details quickly for a single article.
Look up a single DOAJ-indexed article by its DOI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | The article's DOI, e.g. "10.1234/example.2024.001", with or without a "https://doi.org/" prefix. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0-beta.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description is consistent with these annotations but adds no extra details (e.g., error handling, return format). It neither contradicts nor enriches the behavioral contract.
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, clear sentence with no redundant words or extraneous information. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's function.
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 straightforward lookup tool, the description is complete enough. It identifies the input (DOI) and the expected outcome (looking up an article). While it does not explicitly state what happens if the DOI is not found, this is a common expectation and not a critical gap given the simplicity.
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 single parameter 'doi' is fully described in the schema with format examples, yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('look up'), the resource ('single DOAJ-indexed article'), and the identifier ('by its DOI'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_doaj_articles (which searches) and get_doaj_journal_by_issn (which retrieves a journal).
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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention that this is the preferred choice when a DOI is already known, nor does it contrast with search-based retrieval. The context of sibling tools is not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.