Citation Checker

Check references and DOIs

check_references

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks "are these references real?", "check my bibliography", "verify this citation", "is this DOI correct?" or "has this paper been retracted?". Pass each reference as one string as written (authors, year, title, journal, DOI), or just a DOI or a title, up to 10 at a time. Looks each one up in Crossref, the DOI system and OpenAlex and returns a verdict per reference: found (a real record matches), mismatch (a real record exists but the DOI, title, authors or year differ; the real record is shown) or not_found (nothing matches, so it may be invented or garbled). Also returns the paper's retraction status (retracted, expression of concern, corrected) from Crossref. It checks bibliographic details only, not whether a paper's claims are true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "references": "<references>"
    },
    "name": "check_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`references`	Yes	One string per reference, as written in the bibliography or as the user gave it: authors, year, title, journal, DOI. A bare DOI or a bare title also works. At most 10.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary`	Yes
`references`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context they don't: the upstream sources queried (Crossref, DOI system, OpenAlex), the batch cap of 10, the three verdict values and their meaning, and retraction-status retrieval. This is well beyond the structured hints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the invocation triggers, then mechanics, then verdict semantics, then the scope caveat. Every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is the batch-size note already in the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an output schema exists, return-value documentation is optional, yet the description usefully previews the verdict and retraction fields anyway. Combined with the source list, batch limit, and scope disclaimer, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter guidance ('pass each reference as one string as written… up to 10') largely restates what the schema property description and maxItems already say, adding only the enumeration of fields (authors, year, title, journal, DOI).

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('check references and DOIs') and immediately scopes it ('bibliographic details only, not whether a paper's claims are true'). The title and description together leave no ambiguity about what is checked, and none of the siblings (feedback/indexing tools) do anything similar.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Opens with explicit trigger phrases ('are these references real?', 'check my bibliography', 'is this DOI correct?', 'has this paper been retracted?'), which is precisely the when-to-use signal an agent needs. It also states a when-not boundary by clarifying it does not assess claim truth.

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

All Citation Checker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.