Scholar Sidekick

Check Retraction

checkRetraction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or had an expression of concern raised. Use when the user asks 'has this paper been retracted?'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, label, doi, date, source} where type is a raw Crossref update type such as 'retraction', 'correction', 'erratum' or 'expression_of_concern'), 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.

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, 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

TableJSON 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

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context: read-only and idempotent (safe to retry), data source (Crossref updated-by mirroring Retraction Watch), ISBN special case (always no_doi), rate limits and API key usage. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is quite detailed but well-structured: front-loaded purpose, followed by usage guidance, behavioral details, and API key info. While longer than ideal, the complexity of the tool (multiple identifier types, batch restrictions, rate limits) justifies the length. Every sentence adds value.

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 has one parameter, good annotations, and a described output schema, the description completely covers all necessary information: input format, batch behavior, special cases (ISBN), return shape, rate limits, and authentication. No gaps.

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?

Input schema describes the 'id' parameter with length, accepted formats, and batch behavior. The description adds further semantics: it resolves non-DOI identifiers to DOI before lookup, ISBN always returns no_doi, and explains the resolution behavior. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool checks for retraction, correction, or expression of concern on a single work. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'No sibling tool overlaps this' and citing resolveIdentifier as a non-overlapping alternative.

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 scenarios (e.g., user asks 'has this paper been retracted?', clinical/regulatory/evidence-synthesis contexts) and when-not-to-use (rejects batch input, must loop for multiple papers). Also clarifies that for multi-paper audits, one should loop per identifier.

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?