Skip to main content
Glama

Get a paper's review

get_review
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the full AI-generated review (score, verdict, confidence breakdown, checked claims, strengths, weaknesses, sources) for a Pubroot paper ID.

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": {
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYesThe paper ID (e.g. '2026-042').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the review payload (score, verdict, confidence breakdown, checked claims, strengths, weaknesses, sources), which is important since no output schema exists. It omits failure behavior, e.g. what is returned when a paper has no review yet.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact parenthetical listing exactly what comes back. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

Because there is no output schema, spelling out the returned fields is the essential missing piece, and the description supplies it. What remains uncovered is edge-case behavior (no review available, invalid ID), which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and the schema already documents paper_id with a pattern and example ('2026-042'). The description only restates 'Pubroot paper ID' and adds no format, lookup, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full AI-generated review') scoped to a Pubroot paper ID, and enumerates the contents. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_paper or verify_claim, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

The intent is implied clearly enough (fetch the review for a known paper ID), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (does a review need to exist first?), and no routing away from alternatives such as verify_claim for claim-level checks.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.