Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Get Foundational Lineage

get_foundational_lineage

Read-only

Returns the FOUNDATIONAL WORK FOR A PAPER'S NICHE via the citation graph — the relative question ('what is foundational for THIS paper's specific sub-field', often itself only modestly cited) rather than the obvious global landmarks. Anchors on the paper, takes its embedding neighbourhood as the niche, and ranks what the niche cites into three tiers: niche_roots (the niche-specific foundations, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on them — surfaces canonical anchors that semantic search misses), field_level (broader secondary foundations), and discipline (universal landmarks like Attention Is All You Need, collapsed out of the way). Each paper carries cited_by_in_niche evidence so the claim is grounded, not asserted. Use this to trace prior art / lineage for a paper, or to find the canonical methods a niche is built on. Complements get_field_orientation (which is topic-anchored and retrieval-only). No Pro key and no LLM calls required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max papers in each of the niche_roots and field_level tiers (5–40, default 15).
`scope`	No	Niche breadth: 'narrow' (~100 nearest papers, tightest sub-topic — surfaces the few-citation niche root), 'field' (~200, default), 'broad' (~400, wider area foundations).	field
`anchor_paper_id`	Yes	arXiv ID of the paper to anchor on, e.g. '2504.04704' or '2504.04704v2'. The niche is built from this paper's embedding neighbourhood.
`generality_ceiling`	No	When true (default), demote universally-cited landmark papers into the collapsed `discipline` tier so the niche-specific foundations lead. Set false to keep landmarks in the foundational tiers.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`scope`	No
`tiers`	No	Foundational tiers: niche_roots → field_level → discipline.
`anchor`	No
`discipline`	No
`niche_size`	No
`field_level`	No
`niche_roots`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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 clear. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the tool ranks outputs into three tiers, grounds each paper with cited_by_in_niche evidence, collapses universal landmarks into the discipline tier, and surfaces niche-specific anchors that semantic search misses. It also discloses that no LLM calls are required, which is useful operational 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then progresses through output tiers, evidence quality, usage, sibling comparison, and access requirements. Despite covering a nuanced tool, every sentence earns its place and there is no repetitive or filler content. It is dense but well organized.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, how the output is structured, how to interpret the tiers, how to choose scope, and how it relates to a sibling tool. An output schema exists, so the detailed return shape does not need to be restated. For a complex niche-mapping tool, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

All four parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including defaults, ranges, enums, and behavioral effects like generality_ceiling demoting landmarks. The description reinforces the tiering concepts but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 and resource: 'Returns the FOUNDATIONAL WORK FOR A PAPER'S NICHE via the citation graph.' It precisely distinguishes this from global citation landmarks and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool get_field_orientation. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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?

The description gives direct usage guidance: 'Use this to trace prior art / lineage for a paper, or to find the canonical methods a niche is built on.' It also names the relevant sibling, get_field_orientation, and explains the difference ('topic-anchored and retrieval-only'). It even notes operational constraints ('No Pro key and no LLM calls required'), so an agent knows when this is a cheap, safe option.

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

All Scholar Feed tools Inspect

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.

Get Foundational Lineage

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources