Fetch detailed information for a Google Scholar paper by its ID, including metadata needed to review or analyze a specific publication.
获取论文详细信息
Args:
paper_id: 论文ID
Returns:
Dict: 论文详细信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "paper_detailOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.0Does 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. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens with an invalid or unknown paper_id, what fields the detail contains, or that results come from an external source (openWorld). For a lookup tool it is minimally adequate but contributes no behavioral context of its own.
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 text is short and front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the Args/Returns blocks are boilerplate that restate structured fields, and the overall brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing are how to source the paper_id and what failure looks like, which matter for an openWorld lookup.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. Instead it simply restates the schema field (paper_id: 论文ID) without stating the expected format, whether it is a DOI/arXiv/Corpus ID, or that it should be obtained from a prior search call.
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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve detailed information for a paper. An agent can tell this is a detail-fetch-by-ID rather than a search, but the description never names or contrasts with siblings such as search_papers or read_paper_sections, so differentiation is left implicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any precondition such as where a valid paper_id comes from. The agent must infer that the ID originates from a search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.