get_author_papersFetch one page of an author's papers in reverse chronological order using an author ID or profile URL, with limit and offset pagination.
Fetch one page of an author's papers, ordered from newest to oldest.
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes the ordering behavior (newest to oldest) and that results are paged, which is genuine but modest added context; it says nothing about pagination mechanics or the open-world nature of author resolution.
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 that conveys resource, paging scope, and ordering with no filler or redundancy.
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, for a tool with three undocumented parameters, the description only covers ordering and the fact of paging; it omits the accepted author identifier format and how to move to subsequent pages, leaving real gaps.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. "One page" gestures at limit/offset but gives no page-size or pagination semantics, and author_id_or_url is never explained even though the name implies it accepts either a raw ID or a URL of differing formats.
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 (fetch) and resource (an author's papers) plus the ordering, which is enough to distinguish it from single-item siblings like get_paper and get_direction_papers. It never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts with them, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you call this to list an author's works, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_lacuna, get_paper, or get_direction_papers, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. an author must already be resolved). No exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.