Check which academic platforms are available and whether configured API keys work, optionally validating keys with a real request before starting literature research.
Check the status and capabilities of available academic platforms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| validate | No | Whether to validate configured API keys by making a real request (may trigger rate limits). Default: false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'status and capabilities' includes (uptime, rate limits, authentication requirements, available features). The description mentions capabilities but doesn't detail what information is returned or any behavioral constraints.
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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status and capabilities' means in practice, what format the information is returned in, or how this differs from the many search-focused sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the schema already fully documents the 'validate' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status and capabilities of available academic platforms'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools that focus on searching or downloading content rather than platform status checking.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on searching specific databases, there's no indication whether this should be used before attempting searches, when troubleshooting, or as a general health check. The lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.