Resolve a DOI via Crossref and return an article draft for review before adding it to CvLAC's articulos section; read-only and does not write to CvLAC.
Read-only: look up a DOI in Crossref and return an article draft. Review it, then pass it to update_section with section:"articulos"; this tool does not write to CvLAC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | DOI, doi:... or https://doi.org/... |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this consistently ("Read-only", "does not write to CvLAC"). It adds useful context that the output is a draft requiring human/agent review before being written, though it says nothing about failure modes such as unresolvable DOIs or network limits.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and the purpose, then the workflow handoff. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the read-only guarantee, and what is returned (an article draft), plus the next step. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 single doi parameter already documents accepted formats (DOI, doi:..., https://doi.org/...). The description adds no additional syntax or handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 verb (look up), resource (a DOI in Crossref) and the result (an article draft), and distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it does not write to CvLAC and by naming update_section as the follow-up tool.
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?
Gives an explicit workflow: review the returned draft, then pass it to update_section with section:"articulos". It also states the boundary condition (this tool does not write to CvLAC), so the agent knows exactly where this tool's role starts and stops.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.