Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Research Desk

by com.moltlinestudio

Format Citation

format_citation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Format a citation in APA 7, MLA 9, or Chicago author-date style. FREE.

Typical input {"style": "apa", "authors": ["Curie, Marie"], "year": 1911, "title": "Radium and radioactivity", "container": "Century Magazine"} returns {"style": "apa", "citation": "Curie, M. (1911). Radium and radioactivity. Century Magazine.", "note": "..."}.

Use when the source details are already known and only the formatting is missing. Not for finding or verifying a source. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "style must be apa, mla, or chicago"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional URL of the source.
yearYesPublication year, e.g. 2024.
styleYesCitation style: "apa", "mla", or "chicago" (case-insensitive).
titleYesTitle of the work being cited.
authorsYesAuthors as "Last, First" strings in source order, at least one, e.g. ["Curie, Marie"].
accessedNoOptional access date for MLA web sources, e.g. "12 Aug. 2026".
containerNoOptional journal, book, or site name.
publisherNoOptional publisher name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description states 'Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry', which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It also transparently describes error handling: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}'.

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?

Three sentences plus a succinct example. The description is front-loaded with the core action, then provides usage guidance, error behavior, and safety. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, error handling, safety guarantees, and a concrete example. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides a typical input example that illustrates parameter usage, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already describes. The example reinforces the schema but does not introduce new semantics.

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 starts with 'Format a citation in APA 7, MLA 9, or Chicago author-date style', which clearly states the specific verb (format) and resource (citation) with style variants. The sibling tools are all statistical or product-related, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use when the source details are already known and only the formatting is missing. Not for finding or verifying a source.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, directly aiding an agent in selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

All Moltline Research Desk 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: statistical planning (sample_size), description (stats_describe), interval estimation (confidence_interval), citation formatting (format_citation), and product/skill retrieval (list_products, get_free_skill, get_full_skill, get_full_product). No two tools overlap in function, and the descriptions explicitly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_products, get_free_skill, format_citation) and descriptive noun phrases (confidence_interval, sample_size, stats_describe). While all are readable and use snake_case, the lack of a consistent pattern (e.g., all verbs or all nouns) makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count4/5

At 8 tools, the count is appropriate for the server's scope, which covers statistics, citation formatting, and product retrieval. It is not overburdened, and each tool seems justified. The number is slightly above the minimal threshold but well within a reasonable range.

Completeness2/5

The server's name 'research' suggests broader coverage, but the tool surface has notable gaps. Basic statistical tools like hypothesis tests (t-test, ANOVA), correlation, or proportion analysis are missing. The citation tool is limited to three styles. The product retrieval tools are tied to a specific product line, leaving a weak general research focus.

Resources