Scholar Sidekick

Resolve Identifier

resolveIdentifier

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Resolved CSL JSON items, one per identifier.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds further context: rate limits, caching, API key usage, and safety characteristics (idempotent, safe to retry). No contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, accepted identifiers, output, alternatives, safety, and API info. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter.

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 complexity (multiple identifier types, batch processing, API keys, outputs), the description is fully complete. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'text'. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining acceptable identifier formats (prefixes, batch handling), which the schema does not specify.

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 resolves scholarly identifiers to CSL JSON metadata. It specifies the resource (identifiers) and the output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like formatCitation and exportCitation.

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 when to use: when user wants raw bibliographic data, not a formatted citation. It provides alternatives: use formatCitation for finished citation strings, exportCitation for downloadable files.

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?