Paper Finder

Get a paper

get_paper

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user gives a DOI, PubMed id or arXiv id and wants the paper's abstract or a free full-text link, such as "get the abstract for DOI 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2". Pass exactly one of doi, pmid or arxiv_id. Returns the title, authors, year, venue, the start of the abstract, the free full-text link and license when the index confirms them, and the index it came from. It does not say whether the paper was retracted or whether a reference is correct.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doi`	No	DOI such as "10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2"; a doi.org link also works
`pmid`	No	PubMed id such as "31452104"
`arxiv_id`	No	arXiv id such as "2401.12345"; an arxiv.org link also works

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	Yes	Date the indexes were read (UTC, YYYY-MM-DD); they are updated continuously
`error`	No	Present when status is not ok: a stable code, what went wrong and what to do next.
`paper`	No
`notice`	Yes
`source`	Yes	The indexes the answer was read from
`status`	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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: the conditional nature of returned fields ('when the index confirms them') and the explicit negative scope ('does not say whether the paper was retracted or whether a reference is correct'), which prevents misuse. No auth or rate-limit detail, but none is implied for a read-only lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the parameter rule, then the return shape, then the negative scope — a logical ordering with no filler sentences. The middle sentence is long and packs return details that the output schema already covers, which slightly dilutes it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values did not need spelling out, yet the description still frames them conditionally and closes the loop with an explicit list of what the tool cannot answer. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema cannot express: 'Pass exactly one of doi, pmid or arxiv_id.' Since the schema marks no parameter as required and has no oneOf, this mutual-exclusivity rule is meaningful information only the description supplies.

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 specific verb+resource ('get the paper') and pins the exact inputs (DOI, PubMed id, arXiv id) and outputs (abstract or free full-text link). It clearly distinguishes itself from the search siblings (search_papers, search_arxiv) by being a direct identifier lookup rather than a query.

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 opening clause gives an explicit use condition ('when the user gives a DOI, PubMed id or arXiv id and wants the paper's abstract or a free full-text link') reinforced by a concrete example. It also states what the tool is not for (retraction status, reference correctness), but it never names the sibling search tools as the alternative when the user lacks an identifier.

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

All Paper Finder 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.