Skip to main content
Glama

find_related

Find related PAPERS via three modes (papers, not claims — for claims related to a claim use find_related_claims): 'similarity' (default — vector similarity to a doc or text), 'byEntity' (papers mentioning a specific entity like "BERT"), 'byConcept' (papers sharing a key concept). Returns papers with abstract and metadata for quick understanding — no follow-up get_document needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo'similarity' (default): vector similarity to documentId or text. 'byEntity': papers mentioning entity (e.g. 'BERT') — ranks by mention count, biases toward surveys that mention the entity many times rather than original papers introducing it; for canonical lookup use search_keyword or find_by_id. 'byConcept': papers sharing keyConcept.similarity
textNoFor similarity mode (embeds text as query)
limitNo
detailNo'minimal' = id+title+score. 'standard' = + abstract + metadata. 'full' = + author records + licensesstandard
entityNoFor byEntity mode: entity name like 'BERT' or 'ImageNet' (case-insensitive)
run_idNoOptional. The active methodist run_id (as returned by the methodist diagnose / get_current_dose door). Pass it whenever you call this tool while working inside a run, so the call is attributed to that run for the §8 usage crosscheck — attribution is run-anchored, so it stays correct even if your access token refreshes mid-run. Must be YOUR run: a run_id owned by a different principal, or a non-existent run_id, is rejected.
conceptNoFor byConcept mode: keyConcept string (case-insensitive, partial match)
categoriesNoFilter by arXiv categories
documentIdNoFor similarity mode (uses doc avg vector)
vectorModelNoEmbedding model to use (similarity mode only)gemini

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: mode-specific behaviors (e.g., byEntity biases), default values, and output detail levels. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, which prevents a higher score.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, front-loading the purpose and mode distinctions, and includes all necessary information in a single paragraph. Slightly dense but efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers mode differences, return format, and mentions no follow-up call needed. It lacks pagination or error details, but is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 90% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining behavioral nuances (e.g., mode details, run_id attribution rationale) and providing context that helps agents select parameters correctly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool finds related papers (not claims), specifies three modes, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool find_related_claims, providing a specific verb and resource.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear guidance: it is for papers, not claims, and directs users to find_related_claims for claim-related queries. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions for other sibling tools like search_keyword.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between explore_topic and methodist_explore_topic, and between find_related and find_related_claims. Descriptions generally differentiate them well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with methodist_ prefix for research workflow tools, though 'paginate' and 'methodist' (without underscore) are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single server's scope, exceeding the 25+ threshold. The server combines two major workflows (literature search and research process guidance), which would be better split.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: multiple search modes, document submission and versioning, topic exploration, evidence checking, methodology search, and research guidance. Minor gaps include lack of document deletion or metadata update without new version.