HasData

google_scholar_scholar: GET /

hasdata_google_scholar_scholar_getScholarSearchResults

Read-only

Get Scholar Search Results

Scrapes Google Scholar for a query with author:/source: search helpers, year range (asYlo/asYhi), cited-by and all-versions lookups (cites/cluster), review-article and citation-inclusion filters, language/language-restrict, start/num pagination, and asSdt to scope to case law (asSdt=2006 for all courts, 2003 for Federal courts only, or 4/6/3 plus comma-separated court codes for specific courts) or toggle patents. Returns each organic result with title, link, snippet, publication info (authors with profile links), cited-by count and link, related-articles link, and all-versions count and link; a case-law result links to a scholar_case?case= page and carries a ready-to-call caseHasdataLink. Use for academic research, literature review automation, citation tracking, grounding research agents with scholarly sources, and walking case law straight into google/scholar-case-law.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Search query. Supports Google Scholar search helpers such as `author:` and `source:`.
`hl`	No	The two-letter language code for the language you want to use for the search. Provide one exact documented value (159 allowed), e.g. `af`, `ak`.
`lr`	No	The 'lr' parameter specifies the language of the websites to return results from. This parameter filters results based on the language of the web content.
`num`	No	Maximum number of results to return per page.
`asRr`	No	Set to 1 to return review articles only, or 0 (default) to return all articles.
`safe`	No	Adult content filtering option.
`asSdt`	No	Search type/filter. Pick a value below to search case law from a specific court, or use `0,5` for Articles (default) / `7` to include patents. Any comma-separated court-code combination Google Scholar accepts also works here as free text beyond this list. Provide one exact documented value (302 allowed), e.g. `0,5`, `2007`.
`asVis`	No	Set to 1 to exclude citations from the results, or 0 (default) to include them.
`asYhi`	No	Return results published up to and including this year.
`asYlo`	No	Return results published from this year onward.
`cites`	No	Unique article ID to look up articles that cite it, as returned in a result's `citedBy.citesId`.
`start`	No	Result offset for pagination, where 0 is the first result.
`filter`	No	Defines whether to enable or disable the filters for 'Similar Results' and 'Omitted Results'. Set to 1 (default) to enable these filters, or 0 to disable them.
`scisbd`	No	Sort results by date instead of relevance: 1 for abstracts only, 2 for everything. Omit for relevance sorting.
`cluster`	No	Unique article ID to look up all indexed versions of that article, as returned in a result's `versions.clusterId`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / asSdt / description

Previous value: -"Search type/filter, e.g. `0,5` for the default Articles filter, `4` for case law with court codes, or `0`/`7` for patents."New value: +"Search type/filter. Pick a value below to search case law from a specific court, or use `0,5` for Articles (default) / `7` to include patents. Any comma-separated court-code combination Google Scholar accepts also works here as free text beyond this list. Provide one exact documented value (302 allowed), e.g. `0,5`, `2007`."

AddedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (organic results with cited-by/related/versions links, caseHasdataLink for case-law results) and the asSdt court-code semantics, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by parameter coverage and return/use-case detail. The first sentence is a dense run-on enumerating many parameters, but each clause carries information rather than filler.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the result fields and the case-law link behavior, and annotations cover the safety profile. Coverage is strong; only the absence of an explicit alternative-selection rule against the cite sibling leaves a minor gap.

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 goes further by explaining parameter intent: cites/cluster as lookups keyed off returned IDs, asSdt court-code values (2006 all courts, 2003 Federal), review-article and citation-inclusion filters, and scisbd sort modes. This adds meaning beyond the schema text.

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 (scrapes) and resource (Google Scholar search results) and immediately distinguishes the tool from its scholar siblings by calling out cited-by/all-versions lookups and routing case-law results onward. An agent can identify this as the general Scholar search entry point without opening the 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?

Explicitly lists when to use it (academic research, literature review automation, citation tracking, grounding research agents) and points to the sibling google/scholar-case-law flow for case law. It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast against hasdata_google_scholar_cite, but the context is clear.

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

All HasData tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?