Skip to main content
Glama

CiteStamp

by com.citestamp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

What supports

what_supports
Read-onlyIdempotent

Edges recorded as SUPPORTING the given work or claim: human-signed support claims plus successful replication outcomes coded by the FORRT Replication Database. Use when a user asks whether a finding held up or was replicated.

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 100,
+  "description": "Maximum 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.",
+  "maximum": 1000,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "How 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.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context the annotations cannot: what an edge represents, that support comes from two distinct sources (asserted vs. FORRT-coded replication), which pairs with the asserted_only parameter. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, which the schema covers instead.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the definition and followed by the use case. Zero filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description identifies what is returned (support edges from two sources) and the schema documents paging and result-count signaling (has_more, inferred_total). An agent has enough to call this correctly; only the exact result shape is left implicit.

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 all four parameters (including the limit/offset paging caveats and asserted_only semantics) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: edges recorded as SUPPORTING a given work or claim, and enumerates the two content streams (human-signed assertions, FORRT replication outcomes). This directly contrasts with the sibling what_refutes, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use when a user asks whether a finding held up or was replicated.' It does not, however, name what_refutes or what_cites as the alternatives to use when the intent is refutation or citation lookup, so the guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources