Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Sidekick

by com.scholar-sidekick

Verify Citation

verifyCitation
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adsNoNASA ADS bibcode (19 chars).
doiNoDOI 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.
isbnNoISBN (10- or 13-digit, hyphens tolerated).
issnNoISSN for journal-level resolution.
pmidNoPubMed ID as cited (digits only, or with 'PMID:' prefix).
yearNoPublication year as cited. Wrong year alone does not flip the verdict, but >=2-year gap from the resolved record lowers confidence.
arxivNoarXiv ID (e.g. '2301.08745' or 'arXiv:2301.08745'; old-style 'hep-ph/0501023' accepted).
pmcidNoPubMed Central ID (e.g. 'PMC1234567' or 'PMCID:1234567').
titleYesThe 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.
authorNoFirst-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').
containerNoJournal or container name as cited (e.g. 'The Lancet', 'Neuroscience'). Soft signal — surfaced as a mismatch field but does not gate the verdict.
whoIrisUrlNoWHO IRIS URL (https://iris.who.int/...).
screenWithLlmNoOpt-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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
matchedNoThe resolved record at the identifier, or null on not_found.
verdictNo
candidatesNo
confidenceNo
mismatchesNo
_provenanceNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description reinforces read-only and idempotent (safe to retry), explains authentication gates for LLM screen, and describes verdict semantics. 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?

Thorough but slightly lengthy; front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, but could be trimmed slightly for brevity without losing content.

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 13 parameters and output schema, description covers all necessary aspects: use cases, authentication, retry safety, verdict semantics, sibling differentiation. Complete and self-contained.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but description adds significant context: identifier priority order, year gap effect on confidence, author format, screenWithLlm gating. Adds value beyond schema.

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 it verifies a citation by cross-checking title against resolved record, specifically detecting the Topaz fabrication pattern. Distinguishes from sibling tools: resolveIdentifier returns metadata without cross-checking.

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 tells when to use (user asks 'is this real?' or 'check this DOI') and single citation per call. Differentiates from resolveIdentifier by noting the cross-checking behavior.

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