Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Find Author

find_author
Read-only

Two-mode author tool. Provide exactly one of q or id. Q-MODE (q=...): search for researchers by topic or name — uses embedding similarity for topics ('efficient LLM inference'), fuzzy matching for names ('Yann LeCun'). Returns a list of matching authors with author_id, name, h_index, total_papers, primary_field, research_topics. ID-MODE (id=...): look up a single author profile by author_id (obtained from a previous q-mode call or from co_author_graph results). Returns h-index, total citations, global rank, primary field, novelty score distribution, research topics, code/venue scores, years active, and their top 10 papers by rank score.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoTopic or researcher name to search (q-mode). Returns a list of matching authors. Examples: 'efficient transformer training', 'Geoffrey Hinton'.
idNoAuthor ID for direct profile lookup (id-mode). Returns the single author profile with top 10 papers. Get IDs from q-mode results or co_author_graph.
fieldNo(q-mode only) Filter by primary research field e.g. 'cs.LG', 'cs.CV', 'cs.CL'.
limitNo(q-mode only) Max results to return (default 20).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
nameNo
rankNo
queryNo
totalNo
authorsNoMatching authors (q-mode).
h_indexNo
top_papersNoTop papers by rank (id-mode profile).
search_typeNo
total_papersNo
primary_fieldNo
research_topicsNo
total_citationsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the two-mode branching behavior, how queries are matched (embedding similarity vs fuzzy matching), and the exact return fields for both modes.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the key usage rule, and organized into clear Q-MODE and ID-MODE sections. Every sentence contributes either usage guidance or return-value detail, with 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?

For a read-only, two-mode lookup tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers mode selection, the exactly-one rule, q-mode-only parameters, source of IDs, and detailed return contents for both modes. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters. The description adds important cross-parameter context not fully captured by the schema: the requirement to provide exactly one of q or id, and the association of field and limit with q-mode only. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a clear, specific purpose with two explicit modes: searching for authors by topic/name and looking up a single author profile by ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers and co_author_graph by focusing on author identity as the resource and by referencing where IDs come from.

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 operational guidance: 'Provide exactly one of q or id', explains what each mode does, and identifies q-mode-only parameters. It also tells the agent where to obtain author IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools, stopping short of a 5.

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