Query OpenAlex scholarly records by year, citations, or open-access status to discover papers and enrich seed references with one-hop citation data.
Search OpenAlex for fast free discovery and one-hop citation enrichment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Year filter (e.g., "2023", "2020-2023") | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| sortBy | No | ||
| sortOrder | No | ||
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results | |
| openAccess | No | Filter for open-access works only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It claims 'fast free' but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, pagination, result shape, or what 'citation enrichment' actually changes in the response.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. The phrase 'one-hop citation enrichment' is compact but too compressed to be informative, slightly undercutting the concision win.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return format and what citation data comes back. Neither is covered, leaving the agent guessing about the 'enrichment' claim.
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 67%, with descriptions on the most important filters (query, year, maxResults, openAccess). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but does not need to for most of them; sortBy/sortOrder remain undocumented in both places.
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 ('Search OpenAlex') and adds two differentiators against the crowded search_* sibling set: speed/free access and citation enrichment. It falls short of a 5 because 'one-hop citation enrichment' is not spelled out, so the agent cannot tell how this differs from get_citations or expand_citation_graph.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With 13+ sibling search tools (Semantic Scholar, Crossref, Scopus, Google Scholar, etc.), the description never says why an agent should pick OpenAlex over them or what coverage it uniquely provides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.