Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Remove from Collection

remove_from_collection
Destructive

Remove a paper from a collection, addressed by collection_id OR collection_name. MUTATES (the paper stays in your library; it's only removed from this collection). Idempotent. Requires SF_API_KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
arxiv_idYesarXiv ID of the paper to remove from the collection.
collection_idNoUUID of the collection. Provide this OR collection_name.
collection_nameNoName of the collection. Provide this OR collection_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNoTrue when the operation succeeded.
watchNoThe created/affected watch, when applicable.
actionNoMachine label: saved | no_change | removed | liked | created | updated | deleted.
messageNoHuman-readable summary of the outcome.
arxiv_idNo
collectionNoThe created/affected collection, when applicable.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by explicitly stating 'MUTATES', explaining that the paper remains in the library, and adding that the operation is idempotent. It also discloses the SF_API_KEY requirement, which is valuable for invocation.

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 information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then clarifies mutation scope, idempotency, and authentication in three short sentences. No sentence is wasted.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers the essential operational details: addressing by collection_id or collection_name, mutation scope, idempotency, and required API key. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents arxiv_id, collection_id, and collection_name with their meanings. The description adds the 'collection_id OR collection_name' relationship, but this is also present in the schema property descriptions, so the description only minimally enhances parameter understanding.

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: 'Remove a paper from a collection.' It also clarifies the scope by distinguishing between removing from a collection versus keeping the paper in the library, which differentiates it from sibling tools like unsave_paper and add_to_collection.

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 this tool is appropriate: when removing a paper from a collection, and it explicitly notes that the paper stays in the library, implying it is not for removing papers from the library. It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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