Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
semanticscholar-mcp

semanticscholar-mcp

by xbghc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Author Details

get_author

Retrieve detailed author information from Semantic Scholar using an author ID. Optionally specify fields to return.

Instructions

获取作者详细信息

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "authorId": "<authorId>"
    },
    "name": "get_author"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo返回字段
authorIdYesSemantic Scholar 作者 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided and no behavioral detail in the description, the agent cannot learn what side effects, return formats, or limitations exist. The description adds nothing beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one short phrase), but this brevity is due to under-specification rather than efficient writing. It is not well-structured or front-loaded since it contains no informative content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-author tool with sibling tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is deeply inadequate. It fails to explain return fields, differences from search_authors, or any usage context. Completeness is minimal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (e.g., 'Semantic Scholar 作者 ID', '返回字段'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '获取作者详细信息' is simply a rephrase of the tool name/title 'Get Author Details'. It restates the name without adding any distinguishing information against sibling tools like get_author_papers or search_authors. This is a tautology, not a clear specification of purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools