SiteCheck Web Intel

CWTS Leiden Ranking Open Edition 2025: for a country

search_leiden_ranking

Read-only

CWTS Leiden Ranking Open Edition 2025 (publication-based, about 2,800 universities, OpenAlex data): for a country or continent, field and period (2006-2009 to 2020-2023), each university's rank, name, country and the indicators of the chosen dimension: scientific impact (P, top 1%), collaboration (international, industry) or open access (P(OA), PP(OA)). Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_leiden_ranking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`field`	No	all (default), biomedical, life, math, physical or social
`limit`	No	Rows to return, 1 to 1000 (default 50)
`period`	No	Last year of the 4-year window, 2009 to 2023 (default 2023 = 2020-2023)
`country`	No	2-letter country code, e.g. TR, DE, US (omit for world)
`continent`	No	Instead of country: AF, AS, EU, NA, OC or SA
`dimension`	No	impact (default), collaboration or openaccess
`indicator`	No	Indicator set within the dimension, 1 to 5 (default 1; collaboration: 1 all, 2 international, 3 industry, 4 <100 km, 5 >5000 km)
`minPublications`	No	0, 50, 100 (default), 500, 1000, 5000 or 10000

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rows`	No
`field`	No
`period`	No
`source`	No
`columns`	No
`country`	No
`edition`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`continent`	No
`dimension`	No
`universities`	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 only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the upstream data source (OpenAlex), the coverage size, the supported period range, and an explicit pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 across Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls free). That pricing and payment detail is the kind of operational constraint annotations cannot convey, though rate limits and ordering behavior remain unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with dataset identity and scope, then pricing. Dense but every clause carries information; the heavy parenthetical nesting (periods, indicator pairs, payment chains) makes it harder to scan than it needs to be but nothing is filler.

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, the description need not explain return values, and parameter coverage is complete via the schema. It supplies dataset provenance, coverage, period bounds and pricing, which is sufficient for an 8-parameter read-only tool; only result ordering and pagination behavior are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description does add some meaning by mapping dimensions to their indicator sets (P and top 1% for impact, international/industry for collaboration, P(OA)/PP(OA) for open access), but it does not clarify the numeric indicator-to-dimension pairing or the relationship between country and continent.

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 description names a specific dataset (CWTS Leiden Ranking Open Edition 2025), its source (OpenAlex, ~2,800 universities) and the exact response shape per university (rank, name, country, dimension indicators). It is clearly distinct from sibling ranking tools such as search_shanghai_arwu_rankings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 is implied through the scoping dimensions (country/continent, field, period) and the enumeration of available dimensions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to the other university-ranking siblings. An agent can infer the context but must decide among alternatives on its own.

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?