CiteStamp
Server Details
Citation-health over a CC0 citation graph: what supports, refutes, or cites a paper. Read-only.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- citestamp/mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Most tools have distinct purposes (outgoing references, incoming citations, support, refute), but edges_about is a catch-all for any edge, which overlaps with the others. The descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might be unsure when to use edges_about vs. the specific tools.
Naming is inconsistent: edges_about and references_of use noun+preposition, while what_cites, what_refutes, what_supports use a 'what_verb' interrogative pattern. This lack of a consistent pattern could confuse an agent.
5 tools is a reasonable count for querying citation/evidence relationships. It covers the core use cases without being excessive, though a tool to retrieve a work's metadata could be expected.
The tools cover the main citation directions (references_of, what_cites) and evidence types (what_supports, what_refutes), plus a general edge query. Missing a tool to fetch the node itself, but assuming identifiers are known, the set is mostly complete for read operations.
Available Tools
5 toolsedges_aboutAInspect
Every edge touching the given work or claim, in either direction, each tagged with its trust tier (asserted|inferred) and attribution/provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | DOI, arXiv id, OpenAlex id, or internal claim id | |
| asserted_only | No | If true, restrict to human-signed (asserted) edges. If false (default), return both asserted and machine-inferred edges. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output features (trust tier, attribution) but does not mention behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Given the query nature, it's likely safe but not explicit.
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 sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, direction, and output features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (general edge query, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: depth (edges touching), direction (either), and output details (tier, provenance). Minor omissions like pagination or ordering are acceptable for a concise description.
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 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the 'asserted_only' filter corresponds to restricting edges to the 'asserted' trust tier, complementing the schema's boolean description.
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 it returns edges (relationships) touching a given work or claim, in either direction, with trust tiers and attribution. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like references_of (directed) or what_cites (specific relation).
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 implies usage for broad edge exploration ('every edge touching... in either direction') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusion conditions. No alternatives or constraints are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
references_ofCInspect
What the given work CITES (its outgoing references).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | DOI, arXiv id, OpenAlex id, or internal claim id | |
| asserted_only | No | If true, restrict to human-signed (asserted) edges. If false (default), return both asserted and machine-inferred edges. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns outgoing references, but omits details about permissions, rate limits, data freshness, result volume, or mutation (it is read-only, but not stated). This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotations.
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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should provide some context about return values or edge cases. It does not. For a simple tool with 2 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete, lacking behavioral context like response structure or error handling.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the parameters. The schema already describes 'identifier' and 'asserted_only' adequately. The description adds no extra context about parameter formats or usage.
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 it returns outgoing references (citations) of a work, using the verb 'cites' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on outgoing references, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'what_cites' (which would show incoming citations).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'what_cites'. There is no indication of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
what_citesBInspect
Works or claims that CITE the given identifier (incoming citations).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | DOI, arXiv id, OpenAlex id, or internal claim id | |
| asserted_only | No | If true, restrict to human-signed (asserted) edges. If false (default), return both asserted and machine-inferred edges. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, or any other traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or result limitations (e.g., pagination).
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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded, but could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 output schema and moderate parameter count, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format or how results are structured, leaving the agent with guesswork.
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?
The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies that the tool returns incoming citations (works or claims that cite the given identifier), using a clear verb-resource structure. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'references_of' which would handle outgoing citations.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'references_of' or 'what_supports'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
what_refutesAInspect
Edges asserting or indicating that something REFUTES the given work or claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | DOI, arXiv id, OpenAlex id, or internal claim id | |
| asserted_only | No | If true, restrict to human-signed (asserted) edges. If false (default), return both asserted and machine-inferred edges. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description states the tool returns refuting edges, which implies read-only retrieval, but doesn't disclose any side effects, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Single, direct sentence with no wasted words. Clearly communicates the tool's purpose. Ideal conciseness.
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?
Given no output schema, description could hint at return format but doesn't. However, for a simple retrieval tool with two params, the purpose is clear enough. Sibling tools suggest similar patterns.
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 description coverage is 100%; both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 returns edges that refute a given work or claim, using specific verb 'refutes' and resource 'edges'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'what_supports' which likely does the opposite.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'what_supports' or 'edges_about'. The purpose is implied by name and description, but no when-not or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
what_supportsCInspect
Edges asserting or indicating that something SUPPORTS the given work or claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | DOI, arXiv id, OpenAlex id, or internal claim id | |
| asserted_only | No | If true, restrict to human-signed (asserted) edges. If false (default), return both asserted and machine-inferred edges. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description uses vague terms like 'Edges asserting or indicating' without explaining behavioral nuances (e.g., what happens with invalid identifiers, output format, or limitations).
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?
A single sentence, but somewhat awkwardly phrased ('Edges asserting or indicating that something SUPPORTS'). It is concise but lacks clarity in structure.
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?
The description is minimal given the lack of output schema and sibling context. It does not explain what an 'edge' is or what the output looks like, limiting completeness for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'asserting or indicating' which aligns with the asserted_only parameter but does not enhance understanding.
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 returns edges that SUPPORT a work or claim, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like what_cites or what_refutes, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!