Resolve a DOI to CrossRef metadata, an open-access PDF, and a publisher PDF link while checking if your IP is within campus authentication for direct full-text access.
解析 DOI：CrossRef 题录 + OA 副本 + 出版社 citation_pdf_url，并提示当前出口 IP 是否在校园网认证范围（订阅全文可直接取）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | DOI，接受裸 DOI 或 doi.org 链接。 | |
| pdf_url_only | No | true 时跳过出版社落地页探测（更快），只给题录与 OA。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — that the tool probes the publisher landing page (skippable via pdf_url_only) and reports whether the egress IP is inside the campus authentication range — but says nothing about failure modes, rate limits, or what a partial result looks like.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the deliverables. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical about campus subscription is slightly compressed and could be clearer as a separate clause.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does list the three result components plus the campus-IP signal. Missing only edge-case behavior (DOI not found, no OA copy), which is a modest gap for a two-parameter read 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 100%, so both doi and pdf_url_only are already documented, including the faster/limited trade-off. The description reinforces the notion of publisher landing-page probing but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema's own text, making baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (解析) and resource (DOI) and enumerates the three outputs — CrossRef bibliographic record, OA copy, and publisher citation_pdf_url. It is clearly distinct from siblings like scholar_databases or scholar_campus, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the contrast.
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: an agent can infer this is the tool for turning a DOI into full-text/metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use versus scholar_databases or scholar_campus, and no statement of preconditions such as needing to be on the campus network (it only says the tool reports whether you are).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.