Skip to main content
Glama

CiteStamp

by com.citestamp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

What supports

what_supports
Read-onlyIdempotent

Edges asserting or indicating that something SUPPORTS the given work or claim.

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so no safety caveats are missing. The description adds the asserted-vs-indicating distinction, but otherwise discloses no additional runtime behavior (pagination, truncation, or output shape is 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 with every word earning its place. It identifies the entity type, the support relation, and the accepted target without padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The combined definition is usable, and the rich schema descriptions explain paging and filtering, but there is no output schema and the tool description does not describe the edge fields or the 'tier' concept mentioned in the schema. An agent gets enough to call it, but not full clarity on the response.

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 are already documented in detail; the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 names a concrete resource ('edges') and the exact relation ('something SUPPORTS the given work or claim'), which clearly separates it from siblings like what_refutes, what_cites, and references_of. No ambiguity about what kind of result the tool returns.

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?

The description implies the use case—retrieve supporting edges for a work or claim—but it never states when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when not to use it. There is no explicit routing to what_refutes or what_cites.

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
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.

Resources