Add a signal to an interest profile to shape arXiv paper recommendations. Use a seed paper, saved query, followed author, or negative example to refine discovery and ranking.
Add a signal to an interest profile.
Signal types: seed_paper (arXiv ID), saved_query (query slug), followed_author (author name), negative_example (arXiv ID).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| signal_type | Yes | ||
| profile_slug | Yes | ||
| signal_value | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool mutates an interest profile by adding a signal, but it does not disclose whether duplicates are prevented, whether validation occurs, what side effects arise, or what the response contains.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, and the signal-type list is presented efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful information without fluff.
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?
The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to cover more than just valid signal types. It omits the meaning of profile_slug, the optional reason parameter, return behavior, and any differences from batch_add_signals, making it incomplete for confident invocation.
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 compensate. It adds real meaning by defining signal_type allowed values and signal_value expected formats (arXiv ID, query slug, author name), but it leaves profile_slug and reason undefined.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Add a signal to an interest profile') and clearly enumerates the four supported signal types. It is distinct from sibling tools in name and function, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with batch_add_signals.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_add_signals or suggest_signals. It implies usage by defining signal types, but it never states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.