Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Ask Library

ask_library
Read-only

Answer a question using ONLY the papers you've saved — a synthesis over your library (or one collection) with inline [arXiv-ID] citations. The inverse of find_gaps (which finds important work you're MISSING): ask_library reasons over what you HAVE. Optionally scope to one collection (collection_name OR collection_id); omit both to use your whole library. Read-only. Requires SF_API_KEY (it reads your saved set). Free accounts get 1 question/month; Pro raises this to 200/day.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many of your most-relevant saved papers to ground the answer on (max 20). Default 8.
questionYesThe natural-language question to answer from your saved papers.
collection_idNoScope the answer to one collection by UUID. Omit to use your whole library.
collection_nameNoScope the answer to one collection by name (resolved by the backend). Omit to use your whole library.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
answerNoThe synthesized answer with inline [arXiv-ID] citations.
papersNo
messageNo
citationsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description goes further by disclosing that it requires SF_API_KEY, that it reads the saved set, that it produces inline [arXiv-ID] citations, and that quotas differ by account tier. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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 efficient: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds contrast, scoping options, read-only status, auth requirement, and quota. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, how it differs from a sibling, how scoping works, auth requirements, and usage limits. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds valuable relational semantics by saying collection_name OR collection_id can be used and that omitting both uses the whole library, which is not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('Answer a question') and resource ('the papers you've saved'), and explicitly contrasts itself with find_gaps. This makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from a close sibling.

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?

It explicitly names the inverse tool (find_gaps) and explains the distinction: ask_library reasons over what you have, while find_gaps finds what you're missing. It also clarifies optional collection scoping and the default whole-library behavior, giving clear guidance on when and how to use 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