Scholar Sidekick
Server Details
Resolve scholarly identifiers (DOI, PMID, ISBN, arXiv, ISSN, ADS, WHO IRIS) into citations (10,000+ CSL styles) and exports (BibTeX, RIS, EndNote...), plus retraction, open-access, and citation-fabrication checks. Six tools, anonymous-friendly Streamable HTTP.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: OA status, retraction status, identifier resolution, citation formatting, citation export, and citation verification. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with camelCase (e.g., checkOpenAccess, resolveIdentifier). No mixing of styles.
Six tools is well-scoped for a scholarly citation server. Each tool serves a clear need without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers core tasks: lookup, verification, formatting, and export. Missing a search or discovery tool, but that's outside the stated purpose.
Available Tools
6 toolscheckOpenAccessCheck Open AccessARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check whether a single scholarly work is openly accessible and where to find the best legal version. Use when the user asks 'is this open access?', 'where can I read this for free?', or wants the OA license/version before reusing or redistributing. Sourced from Unpaywall. Resolves DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ISBN/ADS inputs to a DOI before lookup; inputs that don't map to a DOI return doi=null and reason='no_doi'. Single identifier per call — does NOT accept comma/newline batches; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Returns: { doi, resolvedFrom?, reason?, result } where result has isOa (boolean), oaStatus ('gold' | 'green' | 'hybrid' | 'bronze' | 'closed'), title, bestLocation ({url, hostType: 'publisher' | 'repository', license, version: 'submittedVersion' | 'acceptedVersion' | 'publishedVersion'} or null), and locations (array of the same shape); result is null when no DOI could be resolved and reason explains why ('no_doi'). No sibling tool overlaps this — resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not OA status. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier; Unpaywall is queried server-side with its own caching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A single scholarly identifier to check. 1–500 characters. Non-DOI inputs are resolved to a DOI server-side before the lookup; if no DOI can be derived, the tool returns doi=null with reason='no_doi'. Pass exactly one identifier — comma/newline batches are NOT accepted by this tool; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Accepted: DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv ID, ISBN, or NASA ADS bibcode (with or without prefixes). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | |
| reason | No | |
| result | Yes | Open-access status, or null when no DOI resolved. |
| resolvedFrom | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds significant context: resolves non-DOI inputs to DOI, returns doi=null with reason if no DOI, sources from Unpaywall, supports anonymous use with rate limits, and authentication options (SCHOLAR_API_KEY, RAPIDAPI_KEY). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is detailed but concise, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers input resolution, output structure, authentication, rate limits, and safety (idempotent). Very complete given complexity and existence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (id) with schema description coverage of 100%. Schema already fully describes accepted formats and behavior (DOI resolution, batch restriction). Description adds authentication context but not parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking open accessibility of a single scholarly work. It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'open access status', and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not OA status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (user asks about open access or free reading) and when not to use (e.g., batch queries not accepted, loop one call per identifier). Mentions alternative tool resolveIdentifier for metadata lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
checkRetractionCheck RetractionARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or had an expression of concern raised. Use when the user asks 'has this paper been retracted?' or wants to verify a paper's standing before citing it (clinical, regulatory, evidence-synthesis contexts). For multi-paper bibliography audits (clinical guidelines, systematic reviews), loop one call per identifier — the tool intentionally rejects batch input to keep retraction-status results unambiguous per work. Sourced from Crossref updated-by (which mirrors Retraction Watch). Resolves DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ADS inputs to a DOI before lookup; ISBN inputs always return doi=null and reason='no_doi' since books are not in the retraction graph. Single identifier per call — does NOT accept comma/newline batches; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Returns: { doi, resolvedFrom?, reason?, result } where result has isRetracted, hasCorrections, hasConcern (booleans), notices (array of {type: 'retraction'|'correction'|'expression-of-concern', label, doi, date, source}), and title; result is null when no DOI could be resolved and reason explains why ('no_doi'). No sibling tool overlaps this — resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not retraction status. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier; Crossref is queried server-side with its own caching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A single scholarly identifier to check. 1–500 characters. Non-DOI inputs are resolved to a DOI server-side before the lookup; if no DOI can be derived, the tool returns doi=null with reason='no_doi'. Pass exactly one identifier — comma/newline batches are NOT accepted by this tool; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Accepted: DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv ID, or NASA ADS bibcode (with or without prefixes). ISBN inputs are accepted but always return doi=null since books are not in the retraction graph. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | Resolved DOI, or null when none could be derived. |
| reason | No | Why result is null (e.g. 'no_doi'). |
| result | Yes | Retraction status, or null when no DOI resolved. |
| resolvedFrom | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which are confirmed. The description adds: 'Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry.' It also explains data source ('Sourced from Crossref updated-by which mirrors Retraction Watch'), authentication options, rate limits, and the behavior for ISBN inputs (always returns doi=null). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and context. However, it is somewhat verbose; some points (e.g., 'loop one call per identifier') are repeated. Overall, every sentence adds value, but minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, rich annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers input handling, output structure, edge cases (ISBN, unresolved IDs), authentication, rate limits, and data provenance. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's description field. It explains that non-DOI inputs are resolved to a DOI server-side, that ISBN always returns no_doi, that batch inputs are not accepted, and lists accepted identifier types (DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv, ADS). This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or had an expression of concern raised.' It specifies the verb ('check') and the resource ('retraction status'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that 'resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not retraction status' and 'No sibling tool overlaps this.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the user asks "has this paper been retracted?" or wants to verify a paper's standing before citing it (clinical, regulatory, evidence-synthesis contexts).' It also explains when not to use: 'For multi-paper bibliography audits... loop one call per identifier — the tool intentionally rejects batch input.' This clearly differentiates from alternatives and sets expectations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
exportCitationExport CitationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Export scholarly identifiers to a bibliography file format ready to write to disk or paste into a reference manager. Use when the user wants a file (.bib, .ris, .nbib, .xml, .rdf, .csv) for Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, RefWorks, BibTeX/LaTeX, Pandoc, or Excel. Format parameter is required: bib (BibTeX — LaTeX), ris (RIS — most widely supported by reference managers), csl (CSL JSON — Pandoc/Quarto), endnote-xml, endnote-refer, refworks, medline (NBIB — PubMed round-trips, clinical workflows), zotero-rdf, csv (spreadsheet-friendly), or txt (plain-text bibliography rendered with the optional style parameter — txt is the only format that uses style; the others have their own structured shape and ignore it). Accepts the same identifier formats as resolveIdentifier (DOI/PMID/PMCID/ISBN/arXiv/ISSN/ADS/WHO IRIS, prefixes tolerated), single or comma/newline-separated batch — one round trip per call. Returns: { content: string, format: string } where content is the entire bibliography in the requested format as a single string — write it to a file (.bib/.ris/.nbib/etc.) or paste it directly into the target tool. Use formatCitation instead when the user wants in-line citation text (manuscript, slide); use resolveIdentifier when they want raw structured metadata. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Locale for formatting (e.g. en-US) | |
| text | Yes | One or more identifiers (DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs, etc.) separated by newlines or commas | |
| style | No | Citation style (used only for txt export) | |
| format | Yes | Export format |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | The export format that was produced. |
| content | Yes | The entire bibliography in the requested format, as one string. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds context about being read-only and idempotent, anonymous usage, API key options, and rate limits. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is lengthy but well-structured, front-loading purpose and then detailing formats, usage, and alternatives. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 params, 100% schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers output format, batch behavior, API keys, and rate limits with no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds detailed explanations for format enum values (e.g., bib for BibTeX), notes style only used for txt, and explains how text accepts identifiers in batch format. Adds significant value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it exports scholarly identifiers to bibliography file formats. It lists specific formats and distinguishes from siblings like formatCitation and resolveIdentifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (user wants a file for reference managers) and when not to (use formatCitation for in-line text, resolveIdentifier for raw metadata). Also mentions batch processing and one round trip per call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
formatCitationFormat CitationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Format scholarly identifiers into a finished citation in a specific style. Use when the user wants a paste-ready citation string for a manuscript, slide, message, footnote, or in-line reference. Style defaults to vancouver if unspecified; ask the user before defaulting if any ambiguity exists (e.g. 'Harvard' and 'Chicago' have multiple variants — confirm which one). Supports five hand-tuned builtins (vancouver, ama, apa, ieee, cse) plus any of 10,000+ CSL style IDs (chicago-author-date, harvard-cite-them-right, modern-language-association, nature, bmj, the-lancet, etc.). Alias and dependent-style resolution apply, so 'harvard' resolves to 'harvard-cite-them-right' and the canonical ID is reported back as styleUsed. Output defaults to text; pass output=html for marked-up HTML or output=json for structured CSL items. Accepts the same identifier formats as resolveIdentifier (DOI/PMID/PMCID/ISBN/arXiv/ISSN/ADS/WHO IRIS, prefixes tolerated), single or comma/newline-separated batch — one round trip per call. Returns: one of { text, html, items } depending on the output parameter, followed by a metadata block ({formatter: 'builtin' | 'csl', styleUsed, requestId, warnings?}) appended as a second text content item — surface this to the user when they care about reproducibility. Use resolveIdentifier instead when the user wants raw metadata to inspect or transform; use exportCitation when they want a downloadable bibliography file. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Locale for formatting (e.g. en-US, en-GB, fr-FR) | |
| text | Yes | One or more identifiers (DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs, arXiv IDs, etc.) separated by newlines or commas | |
| style | No | Citation style: vancouver (default), ama, apa, ieee, cse, or any CSL style ID | |
| output | No | Output format (default: text) | |
| footnote | No | Format as footnotes instead of bibliography entries |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| html | No | Formatted citation HTML (when output=html). |
| lang | No | Locale used for formatting. |
| text | No | Formatted citation text (when output=text). |
| items | No | Structured CSL items (when output=json). |
| warnings | No | |
| formatter | No | Which engine formatted: 'builtin' or 'csl'. |
| styleUsed | No | Canonical style ID after alias/dependent-style resolution. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only, idempotent, safe to retry, anonymous usage, rate limits, and optional API keys. Adds context beyond annotations which already mark as readOnly and idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it is somewhat long. Could be slightly more concise but efficient for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers return structure, metadata block, auth mechanisms, rate limits, sibling tools. No gaps given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema has 100% coverage, description adds meaning: default style, alias resolution, output defaults, batch handling, and identifier format compatibility.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it formats scholarly identifiers into a finished citation string. Distinguishes from siblings: resolveIdentifier for raw metadata, exportCitation for downloadable files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when to use (paste-ready citation) and when not (use resolveIdentifier or exportCitation). Advises on default style and asks user when ambiguous. Provides clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolveIdentifierResolve IdentifierARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Resolve scholarly identifiers to structured CSL JSON metadata (title, authors, journal, year, identifiers). Use when the user wants raw bibliographic data to inspect, transform, or feed into another tool — not a formatted citation. Common single-shot conversions: PMID → PMCID, arXiv → DOI, ISBN → CSL JSON, WHO IRIS URL → structured metadata. Accepts DOI, PMID, PMCID, ISBN, arXiv ID, ISSN, NASA ADS bibcode, or WHO IRIS URL, with or without prefixes (PMID:, arXiv:, ISBN hyphens, https://doi.org/...). Pass a single identifier or a comma/newline-separated batch — one round trip per call. Returns: a JSON array of CSL items, each with id, type, title, author[], issued.date-parts, container-title, DOI/PMID/PMCID/ISBN/ISSN/URL when available. Use formatCitation instead when the user wants a finished citation string in a specific style; use exportCitation when they want a downloadable bibliography file. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier; the underlying REST API caches repeated identical requests and surfaces cache state in the x-scholar-cache response header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | One or more identifiers to resolve (DOIs, PMIDs, PMCIDs, ISBNs, arXiv IDs, ISSNs, ADS bibcodes) separated by newlines or commas |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Resolved CSL JSON items, one per identifier. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: accepted identifier formats, batch processing, return structure, safety guarantees, rate limits, authentication options, and cache behavior. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Reasonably concise given the amount of information; well-structured with clear sentences and logical flow. Slightly long but each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all relevant aspects: purpose, input details, output summary, alternatives, safety, authentication, rate limits. Complete for a tool with good schema and annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description greatly expands on the schema's simple description, listing all identifier types, formats with/without prefixes, and batch handling with separators.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves identifiers to CSL JSON metadata, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools (formatCitation, exportCitation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use: raw bibliographic data, not formatted citations. Also gives when-not-to-use with specific alternatives: formatCitation for strings, exportCitation for files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verifyCitationVerify CitationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verify a claimed citation against the resolved record at its identifier. Detects the dominant AI-driven fabrication pattern documented by Topaz et al. (Lancet 2026): a real, resolvable identifier (DOI / PMID / PMCID / arXiv / etc.) paired with a title that does NOT correspond to the paper at that identifier. Use when the user pastes a citation and asks 'is this real?' or 'check this DOI' — most fabricated citations resolve cleanly under doi.org but their cited title and the resolved title disagree. Single citation per call. Required: title plus exactly one identifier (doi, pmid, pmcid, isbn, arxiv, issn, ads, or whoIrisUrl). Optional refinements: author (first-author family name), year, container (journal). Set screenWithLlm: true to invoke the Stage 3 LLM screen on low-confidence mismatches (catches informal-abbreviation false positives); LLM access is gated to authenticated first-party keys and paid RapidAPI tiers — anonymous callers get 400 LLM_SCREEN_FORBIDDEN. Returns: { verdict: 'matched' | 'mismatch' | 'not_found' | 'ambiguous', confidence: 'high' | 'medium' | 'low', matched: , mismatches: [{field, claimed, resolved, similarity}], candidates: [{item, registries, score}] (when title-search ran), provenance: {stages_run, resolved_via, registries_searched, llm_screen} }. Verdict semantics: 'matched' = claim agrees with resolved record; 'mismatch' = identifier resolves but title does not match (Topaz fabrication pattern); 'ambiguous' = identifier resolves to one paper but the claimed title matches a DIFFERENT paper found via title-search (CITADEL 'citation error' subtype — wrong identifier for a real paper); 'not_found' = neither the identifier nor the title resolves anywhere. No sibling tool overlaps: resolveIdentifier returns metadata for a known-good identifier; verifyCitation is the only tool that cross-checks claimed title vs resolved metadata. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously for the non-LLM path; the Stage 3 LLM screen requires authentication — set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) or use a paid RapidAPI tier. SCHOLAR_API_KEY also raises your rate limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ads | No | NASA ADS bibcode (19 chars). | |
| doi | No | DOI as cited (with or without https://doi.org/ prefix). Provide whichever identifier(s) the cited reference carries; the verifier uses the first one in priority order doi > pmid > pmcid > arxiv > ads > isbn > issn > whoIrisUrl. | |
| isbn | No | ISBN (10- or 13-digit, hyphens tolerated). | |
| issn | No | ISSN for journal-level resolution. | |
| pmid | No | PubMed ID as cited (digits only, or with 'PMID:' prefix). | |
| year | No | Publication year as cited. Wrong year alone does not flip the verdict, but >=2-year gap from the resolved record lowers confidence. | |
| arxiv | No | arXiv ID (e.g. '2301.08745' or 'arXiv:2301.08745'; old-style 'hep-ph/0501023' accepted). | |
| pmcid | No | PubMed Central ID (e.g. 'PMC1234567' or 'PMCID:1234567'). | |
| title | Yes | The title as it appears in the cited reference. This is the field the verifier cross-checks against the resolved record at the supplied identifier. Required. | |
| author | No | First-author family name as cited. Refines the verdict — a title-vs-resolved-title match plus an author mismatch raises suspicion of fabrication. Pass only the family name (e.g. 'Topaz', not 'Topaz, Maxim'). | |
| container | No | Journal or container name as cited (e.g. 'The Lancet', 'Neuroscience'). Soft signal — surfaced as a mismatch field but does not gate the verdict. | |
| whoIrisUrl | No | WHO IRIS URL (https://iris.who.int/...). | |
| screenWithLlm | No | Opt-in Stage 3 LLM screen. Fires only when the pre-LLM verdict is mismatch with low confidence (the informal-abbreviation false-positive bucket). Gated: requires an authenticated first-party API key or a paid RapidAPI tier; anonymous / free callers receive 400 LLM_SCREEN_FORBIDDEN. Default false. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| matched | No | The resolved record at the identifier, or null on not_found. |
| verdict | No | |
| candidates | No | |
| confidence | No | |
| mismatches | No | |
| _provenance | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds detailed behavioral traits: return structure, verdict semantics, LLM screen gating, authentication requirements, rate limit info. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is lengthy but well-structured and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, covering usage, behavior, parameters, and authentication. Slightly verbose but justified by tool complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters, rich annotations, output schema existence, and sibling tools, the description is comprehensive. It covers use cases, behavior, return values, authentication, and distinguishes from siblings. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains required vs optional, parameter roles (e.g., author as first-author family name, screenWithLlm gating). However, schema already describes each parameter well, so score is slightly above baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Verify a claimed citation against the resolved record at its identifier' and identifies the specific fabrication pattern detected (Topaz et al.). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that verifyCitation is the only tool cross-checking title vs resolved metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the user pastes a citation and asks "is this real?" or "check this DOI"' and explains when not to use (siblings). Provides exact required and optional parameters, and notes LLM screen requires authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!