Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Feed

by io.github.YGao2005

Unsave Paper

unsave_paper
Destructive

Remove a paper from the authenticated user's Scholar Feed library. MUTATES the library. Idempotent: removing a paper that isn't saved leaves it unsaved. Note: the saved library is a superset of all collections, so un-saving a paper ALSO removes it from every collection it was in. To keep it filed in a collection, use remove_from_collection instead (that leaves the paper saved). Requires SF_API_KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
arxiv_idYesarXiv ID of the paper to remove from the library.

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation mutates the library, is idempotent, and cascades by removing the paper from every collection. It also flags the auth requirement, giving full transparency about side effects.

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 yet information-dense: purpose, mutation warning, idempotency, collection side effect, alternative tool, and auth requirement all fit in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value and the most critical behavior comes first.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and relevant annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation's effects, edge case behavior, alternative route, and authentication, so an agent has everything needed to 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?

The input schema fully documents the single arxiv_id parameter, so the description does not need to add much. It does not introduce extra parameter-level detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'remove' and the specific resource: a paper from the authenticated user's Scholar Feed library. It also differentiates itself from remove_from_collection, making its precise scope obvious.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus remove_from_collection, with a concrete condition: use remove_from_collection if the paper should remain saved. It also notes the SF_API_KEY requirement for authentication.

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