Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Get Citations

get_citations
Read-only

Get the citation graph for a paper, sorted by citing-paper rank_score (highest-impact first). 'citing' = outgoing references this paper cites; 'cited_by' = incoming citations from other papers. Default response is a lean 12-field shape per paper — pass verbose=true for the full 28-field shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of papers to return (max 50)
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to return (e.g. 'arxiv_id,title,llm_summary,llm_novelty_score'). If omitted, returns the lean 12-field default unless verbose=true.
verboseNoIf true, returns the full 28-field paper shape. Default false returns the lean 12-field set. Ignored when `fields` is provided.
arxiv_idYesarXiv ID of the paper
directionNo'citing' = outgoing references this paper cites; 'cited_by' = incoming citations from other paperscited_by
exclude_idsNoarXiv IDs to exclude from results (for deduplication across chained calls)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoSearch mode actually applied.
noteNo
pageNo
sortNoSearch sort order actually applied.
limitNo
topicNo
totalNoTotal results available for the query. null when the count was skipped (query-less browse, or the count query timed out).
papersNoMatched / returned papers.
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

A4.3/5.0
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 non-obvious behavior: ranking by impact score, the meaning of each direction, and the 12-field versus 28-field response shape, going beyond the schema's field-level details.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences provide the key behavior, direction definitions, and response shape with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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 a rich output schema, full parameter documentation, and read-only annotations, the description has little left to cover. It successfully adds the sort order, direction semantics, and default output shape, making the tool fully understandable and callable without missing context.

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 itself documents all six parameters. The description reinforces the verbosity and direction semantics but does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, keeping the score at the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get the citation graph for a paper') and adds a distinguishing sorting behavior ('sorted by citing-paper rank_score'). It also defines both direction values, making the tool's scope unambiguous and separating it from related graph tools like co_author_graph.

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 clearly explains the two directions ('citing' vs. 'cited_by') and notes the default versus verbose response shape, giving the agent a solid sense of what the tool will do in normal use. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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