get_author_directionsRetrieve one page of an author's named research directions by author ID or URL, with limit and offset controls for pagination.
Fetch one page of an author's named research directions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| author_id_or_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral detail is that results are paged ('one page'), which is useful but thin; it says nothing about ordering, total counts, or how paging interacts with offset/limit.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is efficient, though almost too terse for a tool with an undocumented identifier parameter.
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 described. However, with zero schema description coverage, no sibling differentiation, and no explanation of the required author identifier, the description is only minimally sufficient for correct 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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'one page' hints at limit/offset semantics, but the critical author_id_or_url parameter is never explained — no indication of accepted ID format versus URL form.
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 and resource: fetching an author's named research directions, scoped to a single page. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_direction or get_direction_papers, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. Given siblings such as get_direction (single direction) and get_direction_papers (papers within a direction), the description should say when to list an author's directions versus drilling into one, but it leaves that entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.