get_author_neighborsFind neighboring or similar Lacuna authors from an author ID or URL, returning one ranked page with limit and offset controls.
Fetch one ranked page of neighboring/similar Lacuna authors.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked and paged, but does not explain how neighbors are computed, whether a missing author errors, or rate limits. Some added context, but thin.
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. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than padded.
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 explained, but with three undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, an agent cannot confidently supply limit/offset or know what a 'neighbor' is. The definition is incomplete for a paginated, ranked query tool.
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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions author_id_or_url, limit, or offset, leaving the pagination contract entirely undocumented. Only vague hints ('one ranked page') gesture at limit/offset.
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?
Clear verb (fetch) plus resource (neighboring/similar authors) and scope (one ranked page). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_author_papers and get_author_directions by focusing on similar authors, though it never defines what 'neighboring' authors actually are.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other author-related siblings, nor what prerequisite (a valid author id/URL) is needed. The word 'page' implies pagination but no conditions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.