Find active papers by title substring, exact DOI, or paper ID. Use an empty query to list up to 50, and returned IDs to scope searches.
Find active papers by title substring, exact DOI or paper ID. Empty query lists up to 50. Use IDs to scope search. No model call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive safety, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it is a cheap lexical lookup with no model call, only *active* papers are returned, and an empty query is capped at 50 results. Pagination beyond that cap is unstated.
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?
Three terse clauses with zero filler; the match modes are front-loaded and the default/cap behavior follows immediately.
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 single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers match modes, default behavior, and result cap. What an agent cannot learn is how to page past 50 results or what fields come back.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: `query` accepts a title substring, an exact DOI, or a paper ID, and the empty-string default is explicitly defined as 'list up to 50'. Only the ID/DOI format syntax is left unspecified.
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 (find/list active papers) plus the three match modes: title substring, exact DOI, paper ID. It is distinguishable from `search` only implicitly, via the 'No model call' note, so it stops short of a clean sibling differentiation.
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?
"Empty query lists up to 50" and "Use IDs to scope search" give concrete invocation guidance, but the description never says when to prefer this over `search` or `citation_network` — the boundary is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.