Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scienceon-mcp

scienceon-mcp

by rubatoyd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

scienceON_detail

Read-only

Retrieve detailed bibliographic information and abstracts for academic literature by entering a control number.

Instructions

제어번호(CN)로 상세 서지·초록 조회.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "control_no": "<control_no>"
    },
    "name": "scienceON_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoARTI
control_noYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, scoping constraints, or side effects; with the annotation coverage, this meets the minimum but does not go further.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise Korean sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it lacks structure and would benefit from a brief usage note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core purpose and primary parameter. However, it omits any explanation of the target parameter, return behavior, and does not position the tool against its siblings, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 provides meaning for control_no as the lookup key, but says nothing about the target parameter (default 'ARTI'), leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed bibliographic/abstract information by control number (CN). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the CN-based lookup distinguishes it from the sibling search tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to use when you have a control number and need detailed record data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus scienceON_search or other siblings, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools