Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Sidekick

by com.scholar-sidekick

Audit Bibliography

auditBibliography
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a WHOLE bibliography in one call — the batch counterpart to verifyCitation. Each entry runs the same fabrication check (real, resolvable identifier paired with a title that does NOT match the resolved paper; Topaz et al., Lancet 2026) plus a retraction lookup, and the tool returns a per-entry verdict table and a corpus summary. Use when the user pastes a reference list, a .bib / .ris file, or asks to 'check all these citations at once' / 'audit my bibliography' / 'which of these references are fake or retracted'. Input: EITHER bibliography (raw BibTeX / RIS / CSL-JSON text — format auto-detected) OR claims (an array of pre-parsed {title + identifier} objects), not both. Capped at 25 entries per call; excess is dropped and reported via truncated. checks defaults to ['retraction'] (pass [] to skip); screenWithLlm opt-in per entry (same auth gating as verifyCitation). Returns: { format, entries: [{ index, sourceKey?, status: 'ok'|'error', verdict: 'matched' | 'mismatch' | 'not_found' | 'ambiguous', confidence, matched, mismatches, retraction: { checked, doi, isRetracted, hasCorrections, hasConcern, notices } | null, provenance }], parseErrors: [{ index, error, message }], truncated, summary: { total, matched, mismatch, ambiguous, not_found, errored, retracted } }. Per-entry leniency: one entry that fails to resolve becomes status:'error' without failing the batch. This audits citation IDENTITY (does each identifier resolve to the claimed work, and is it retracted) — it does NOT check whether a source supports the claim it is cited for. Read-only and idempotent. Works anonymously for the non-LLM path; SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) or a paid RapidAPI tier raises rate limits and enables the optional LLM screen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checksNoPer-entry enrichment checks. Defaults to ['retraction'] (flags retracted / corrected / expression-of-concern works via Crossref + Retraction Watch, keyed on each resolved DOI). Pass [] to skip the retraction lookup.
claimsNoPre-parsed citations to audit — an alternative to `bibliography` for agents that already hold structured references. Each needs a `title` plus whatever identifiers the citation carries.
formatNoOverride format auto-detection for `bibliography`.
bibliographyNoRaw bibliography text to parse and audit — BibTeX, RIS, or CSL-JSON. Provide EITHER this or `claims`, not both. Format is auto-detected from the content; override with `format`. Capped at 25 entries per call (excess is dropped and reported via `truncated`).
screenWithLlmNoOpt-in Stage 3 LLM screen applied per entry (same gating as verifyCitation: authenticated first-party key or paid RapidAPI tier). Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoDetected input format ('bibtex' | 'ris' | 'csl-json'), or null for the claims[] path.
entriesNoOne result per verifiable entry: { index, sourceKey?, status: 'ok'|'error', verdict, confidence, matched, mismatches, retraction, _provenance }.
summaryNoCorpus roll-up: { total, matched, mismatch, ambiguous, not_found, errored, retracted }.
truncatedNoCount of entries dropped beyond the 25-entry cap.
parseErrorsNoEntries that could not be parsed or lacked a title: { index, error, message }.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context beyond these: it is read-only and idempotent, works anonymously for non-LLM path, details authentication requirements, per-entry leniency (one error doesn't fail batch), truncation behavior, and clarifies it checks identity not support.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then input options, behavior, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, though some details (e.g., specific fabrication check example) could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity. Overall it is efficient for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (batch audit, multiple input formats, optional LLM screen, truncation, retraction lookup), the description covers all essential aspects: input, behavior, limitations, authentication, and return format. The output schema is also provided, so return values are fully documented. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains 'bibliography' vs 'claims' mutual exclusivity, default for 'checks' and effect of skipping, and that 'screenWithLlm' has same auth gating as verifyCitation. This adds value, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 clearly states it is the batch counterpart to verifyCitation for auditing entire bibliographies, specifying it checks fabrication (real identifier with non-matching title) and retractions. It distinguishes from siblings like verifyCitation (single) and checkRetraction by noting its batch nature and scope.

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?

It explicitly describes when to use: when user pastes a reference list, .bib/.ris file, or asks to 'check all these citations at once'. It also specifies input options (bibliography text or claims array) and the 25-entry cap. While it doesn't state when not to use, it provides clear context.

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

All Scholar Sidekick 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with camelCase (e.g., checkOpenAccess, resolveIdentifier). No mixing of styles.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a scholarly citation server. Each tool serves a clear need without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core tasks: lookup, verification, formatting, and export. Missing a search or discovery tool, but that's outside the stated purpose.

Resources