Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Check Watches

check_watches
Read-only

Pull new matching papers since the last digest delivery, in the same shape as search_papers results. Optionally scope to one watch by watch_name OR watch_id; omit both for all watches. Read-only and idempotent — does NOT advance any watermark (only digest delivery does), so it is safe to call repeatedly (no mark-on-read). This is the in-session 'anything new on my watches?' pull. Requires SF_API_KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax hits to return (max 100).
watch_idNoScope to one watch by UUID. Provide this OR watch_name, or neither for all.
watch_nameNoScope to one watch by name. Provide this OR watch_id, or neither for all.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hitsNoNew watch matches (check_watches).
modeNoSearch mode actually applied.
noteNo
pageNo
sortNoSearch sort order actually applied.
limitNo
sinceNoWatermark the hits were computed from, or null on first run.
topicNo
totalNoTotal results available for the query. null when the count was skipped (query-less browse, or the count query timed out).
directionNoCitation direction (get_citations: citing | cited_by).
not_foundNoRequested IDs that had no match.
next_cursorNoKeyset cursor for the next page, or null when exhausted.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses idempotency, that no watermark is advanced, that only digest delivery advances it, and that there is no mark-on-read. It also states the required SF_API_KEY. These are meaningful behavioral details that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the action, the scoping rule, the read-only idempotent behavior, the use case, and the auth requirement. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers return shape via the search_papers reference. It covers side effects, scoping, authentication, and use case. For a tool with three optional parameters and a read-only safety profile, nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a concise prose explanation of the OR relationship between watch_name and watch_id and the default 'all watches' behavior, but it does not substantially go beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Pull'), a clear resource ('new matching papers since the last digest delivery'), and the same shape as search_papers results. It also distinguishes scoping modes and contrasts with the digest-delivery mechanism. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from siblings like list_watches, preview_watch, and search_papers.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: the in-session 'anything new on my watches?' pull, scoped optionally by watch_name or watch_id, or all watches when both are omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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