Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Add to Collection

add_to_collection

Add a paper to a collection, addressed by collection_id OR collection_name (get-or-create by name — no need to look up an id first). Nest with "/": collection_name "AgentOPA/Formal" files the paper under an "AgentOPA" folder. MUTATES: also auto-saves the paper to the library. Idempotent (adding a paper already in the collection is a no-op). Requires SF_API_KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
arxiv_idYesarXiv ID of the paper to add, e.g. '2407.15831'.
collection_idNoUUID of an existing collection. Provide this OR collection_name.
collection_nameNoName of the collection. Created if it doesn't exist. Use '/' to nest, e.g. 'AgentOPA/Formal'. Provide this OR collection_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNoTrue when the operation succeeded.
watchNoThe created/affected watch, when applicable.
actionNoMachine label: saved | no_change | removed | liked | created | updated | deleted.
messageNoHuman-readable summary of the outcome.
arxiv_idNo
collectionNoThe created/affected collection, when applicable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavior: MUTATES and auto-saves to the library, idempotence via no-op on duplicates, get-or-create side effect, and the SF_API_KEY requirement. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and addressing options, and the remaining sentences each add a distinct behavioral or auth detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 the core action, addressing alternatives, get-or-create semantics, nesting, side-effect auto-save, idempotence, and authentication. With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that collection_name needs no pre-lookup and that '/' nesting files the paper under a folder, going beyond the schema's existing 'Created if it doesn't exist' and 'Use / to nest' notes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a paper to a collection' with two addressing modes (collection_id or collection_name). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting get-or-create by name and auto-saving to the library, which separates it from create_collection and save_paper.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear invocation guidance: use collection_id OR collection_name, and no need to look up an id first because names are get-or-create. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can decide when to call it.

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

All Scholar Feed 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action — search vs. saved-library synthesis vs. citation analysis vs. article metadata — and the descriptions explicitly cross-reference one another to reduce confusion. A few retrieval/analysis tools (get_field_orientation, get_foundational_lineage, get_citations, check_drift) have adjacent purposes and could be misselected without reading their descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_watch, delete_watch, list_library, save_paper, annotate_paper, fetch_fulltext, search_papers. Minor deviations like co_author_graph and the interchangeable retrieval verbs (search, find, get, check, ask) create slight inconsistency, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

27 tools is on the heavy side, but the server covers several coherent subdomains: search/discovery, library/collection management, watches, annotations, and research analysis. The count is justifiable for the broad purpose, though some of the discovery/analysis tools could likely be consolidated or split into a separate server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle well: search, fetch, save, organize into collections, annotate, watch for new papers, and analyze citations/authors/gaps. Minor gaps exist — there is no collection deletion/rename, no explicit mark-as-read tool, and no unlike operation — but these are workable edge cases rather than blocking omissions.

Resources