Get papers that cite the given paper (who refers to this work). Use when the user asks 'who cites X', 'what's the impact', or wants follow-up work. Note: 2024+ citation coverage is sparse; indexing in progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | Max citing papers (default 25, max 100). | |
| id | Yes | arXiv ID or OpenAlex Work ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds useful context about sparse 2024+ coverage, which helps set expectations beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, some hint about return format would be helpful, but the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool with clear intent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters with descriptions. Description does not add new details about parameters beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get papers that cite the given paper' with specific examples of user queries. Distinct from siblings like 'references' (papers that the given paper cites) and 'similar_papers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'who cites X', 'what's the impact', or follow-up work. Also notes coverage limitation for 2024+, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: citation retrieval is split into inbound and outbound, paper data is divided into metadata, full text, figures, entities, and structure, with separate search and similarity tools. No overlap.
Most tools use snake_case, but there's a mix of 'get_' prefix (get_entities, get_figures, etc.) and direct action names (citations, references, search_papers). This is minor inconsistency; overall pattern is clear.
9 tools is well within the optimal range for a scientific paper server. Each tool adds unique value without overwhelming the interface.
The server covers the full lifecycle for paper retrieval: search, metadata, full text, figures, citations (both directions), entities, structure, and similarity. No obvious gaps for its read-only purpose.
