Downloads multiple paywalled papers from IEEE Xplore and ScienceDirect sequentially through WebVPN. Fetches PDFs with polite delays and a batch size limit.
Download several papers sequentially with polite delays. Refuses large batches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | max downloads this run (default 10) | |
| urls | Yes | ||
| output_dir | No |
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 and does add real traits: requests are sequential rather than parallel, delays are deliberately polite, and large batches are rejected. However it omits what counts as 'large', whether auth/session is required, and any rate-limit or failure semantics, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint (sequentially, polite delays) and no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 three-parameter batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps: the threshold for refusal, auth/session expectations (relevant given the check_session sibling), and behavior on partial failure. One required parameter is named but its handling is unaddressed.
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 coverage is only 33%: 'max' is described in the schema, while 'urls' and 'output_dir' have no descriptions. The text does not fill those gaps, adding no format, ordering, or destination detail. Baseline is above 3 only if the description compensates, and it does not.
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 clear verb (download) and resource (several papers), and 'sequentially' plus 'refuses large batches' marks it apart from the singular sibling download_paper. It is not fully explicit that this is the batch variant versus the single-paper sibling, but the plural and sequential framing get an agent most of the way there.
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?
Implies when to use it (multi-paper, moderate batch) and signals a refusal case, but never names the alternative download_paper or states a concrete threshold or condition for choosing either. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.