SiteCheck Web Intel

Crossref works search: DOI, title, type, container, year

search_crossref

Read-only

Crossref works search (public REST API, no key): DOI, title, type, container (journal or book), year, authors and link for matching scholarly records. Metadata only; abstracts are not always present in Crossref. Related tools on this server, for a different need: search_crossref_academic_paper when you need Crossref DOI lookup: title, authors, journal, publication. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_crossref"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Search words (1 to 200 characters)
`rows`	No	How many records, 1 to 20 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`count`	No
`items`	No
`total`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds material context those fields cannot carry: no API key required, metadata-only responses, abstracts inconsistently present, and a pay-per-successful-call price of $0.002 in USDC via x402 with failures not charged. Billing and content-coverage disclosure are exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before invoking a metered endpoint. It stops short of rate limits or result-cap behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Capability and returned fields are front-loaded, and the access, coverage, and pricing facts each appear once with no padding. The pricing sentence is a little dense and the sibling sentence runs long, but nothing is redundant. Slightly tighter phrasing would reach a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining unknowns: auth model, cost mechanics, and the abstract-availability caveat. The one weak spot is the unresolved overlap with search_crossref_academic_paper, which leaves routing ambiguous. For a two-parameter metered read tool, that is close to complete.

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% and both parameters (q with a 1-200 char constraint, rows with a 1-20 range and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no query-syntax or field-scoping guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause names a specific verb and resource ('Crossref works search') and enumerates the record fields available (DOI, title, type, container, year, authors, link). The sibling reference is muddy — 'search_crossref_academic_paper when you need Crossref DOI lookup: title, authors, journal, publication' describes nearly the same capability, so the differentiation isn't crisp. An agent knows what the tool does, but not cleanly why it differs from the named alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied: scholarly metadata lookups where abstracts may be absent, and it points at one sibling for an overlapping need without stating a decision rule. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or guidance on choosing between the two Crossref tools. The agent must infer selection criteria from field lists alone.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?