Retrieve full metadata for a single academic paper by arXiv ID, DOI, or Semantic Scholar ID, including abstract, authors, venue, citation counts, and links.
Full metadata for one paper: complete abstract, authors, venue, citation counts, links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | arXiv id (1706.03762), arXiv URL, DOI (10.xxxx/...) or Semantic Scholar id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the field inventory, which is mild added context, but says nothing about failure behavior for malformed or unknown identifiers, or about how external-source lookups may vary. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the scope ('Full metadata for one paper') and then lists the payload. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing that could be cut.
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 one fully documented parameter, a present output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It falls short of 5 only because there is no routing guidance against the seven sibling tools.
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 100% and the paper_id field already documents every accepted identifier form (arXiv id, arXiv URL, DOI, Semantic Scholar id). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for this single required parameter, so the baseline of 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 resource and scope: 'Full metadata for one paper', then enumerates the fields returned (abstract, authors, venue, citation counts, links). The 'one paper' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools, though it never names search_papers or get_citations explicitly.
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: an agent can infer this is the single-record lookup to use once a paper_id is known, versus search_papers for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer get_citations or find_related_papers, and no note on what happens with an unresolvable id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.