Scholar Sidekick

Check Open Access

checkOpenAccess

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doi`	Yes
`reason`	No
`result`	Yes	Open-access status, or null when no DOI resolved.
`resolvedFrom`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), adds details: resolution behavior for non-DOI inputs, response structure with reason for failure, rate limits, API key options, and caching. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Long but well-structured; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Slightly verbose but not wasteful. Could trim some details but still efficient.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, output schema (even though output schema exists), error handling, authentication, rate limits. Complete for a tool with input resolution and multiple output fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant semantics: explains resolution process, accepted identifier types, rejection of batches, and behavior when no DOI is found. Greatly enhances agent understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks OA status and best location, with specific verb 'check'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'resolveIdentifier' by stating it 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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use examples ('is this open access?', 'where can I read for free?'), tells when not to use (single identifier only, no batches), and mentions sibling alternative.

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

All Scholar Sidekick tools Inspect

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

Need Help?