figure_library_search_pageRetrieve the next page of a scientific figure search result set by reusing the original resultSetId and opaque cursor, keeping the query unchanged.
Paginate an existing search result set for the host Agent or App. Keep the resultSetId and opaque cursor unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | Yes | ||
| resultSetId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the resultSetId and opaque cursor should remain unchanged, which is useful contextual behavior, but it does not disclose cursor lifetime, pagination limits, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key operational constraint (keep resultSetId and cursor unchanged) is stated immediately afterward. Every word earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter, read-only pagination tool with strong annotations, this description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that resultSetId and cursor are returned by a previous search call, though 'existing search result set' strongly implies that provenance.
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 compensate. It names both parameters and characterizes the cursor as opaque, adding some meaning beyond the bare string schema. However, it does not explicitly say that these values come from a prior figure_library_search response or explain how pagination advances beyond keeping them unchanged.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Paginate') with a specific resource ('an existing search result set'), clearly distinguishing this from figure_library_search, which creates a new search. The title 'Load another candidate page' reinforces the same idea. There is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.
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?
The phrase 'existing search result set' makes the intended use clear: this is for continuing or paging through an already-created result set, not for starting a new search. It does not explicitly name figure_library_search as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.