Skip to main content
Glama

CiteStamp

by com.citestamp

Edges about

edges_about
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every edge touching the given work or claim, in either direction, each tagged with its trust tier (asserted|inferred) and attribution/provenance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum edges to return per tier (default 100, max 1000). Well-cited works have thousands; the response reports has_more and inferred_total so you can tell a page from the whole answer.
offsetNoHow many edges to skip, for paging. Advance by the LIMIT you asked for, not by the number of results you got back — duplicates are removed after the window is taken, so a page can return fewer rows than it consumed. Keep going while has_more is true.
identifierYesDOI, arXiv id, OpenAlex id, or internal claim id
asserted_onlyNoIf true, restrict to human-signed (asserted) edges. If false (default), return both asserted and machine-inferred edges.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about returning both directions and tagging edges with trust tier and provenance, but it does not mention pagination, deduplication, or has_more semantics, which are left to the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that captures the essence of the tool with zero filler. It names the resource, scope, and key output attributes efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a read-only tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the core purpose and key output details (trust tier, provenance). It omits output shape details like has_more and inferred_total, but those are embedded in the parameter descriptions, and the annotation suite already covers safety, so the overall context is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource (edges touching a work/claim), scope (every edge, in either direction), and output tagging (trust tier and attribution/provenance). This clearly distinguishes it from the directional sibling tools like what_cites or references_of without needing to open their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description's 'every edge ... in either direction' implies it is the comprehensive edge query, and the sibling names suggest more specific alternatives, but this routing is left to inference rather than stated.

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

All CiteStamp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct query direction or edge type, but edges_about is a broad catch-all that overlaps with the specialized queries. The descriptions are clear enough that an agent can usually pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names mix 'what_' question forms with noun-preposition forms like edges_about and references_of. They are all lowercase snake_case and readable, but the pattern is not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped size for a citation graph query server. Each tool covers a meaningful query type without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all major edge exploration needs: outgoing references, incoming citations, support/refute relationships, and a catch-all for all edges. There are no obvious dead ends for read-only citation graph queries.

Resources