BGPT - Scientific Paper Search
Server Details
Search scientific papers with structured experimental data from full-text studies
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- connerlambden/bgpt-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 36
- Server Listing
- BGPT
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_papers finds papers by keyword, while lookup_paper retrieves a specific paper by DOI. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (lookup_paper, search_papers) and use the same snake_case convention.
With only two tools, the server is slightly minimal but still reasonable for a focused paper search service. The tools cover the essential search and lookup operations.
The tool set covers the core search and retrieval workflow. Missing advanced features like filtering or sorting are minor gaps that agents can work around.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_paperLook up paper by DOIARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up a single paper by its DOI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | The DOI of the paper (e.g. "10.1038/s41586-024-07386-0"). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as error handling or response format, but output schema covers return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, completely non-redundant, and immediately communicates the tool's function. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is fully adequate. It covers the essential information needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description and example for the 'doi' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up a single paper by its DOI, which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'search_papers' which searches for papers without a specific DOI.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use this tool (when you have a DOI) and implicitly contrasts with the sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the sibling name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_papersSearch scientific papersARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search BGPT's database of scientific papers by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms (e.g. "CRISPR gene editing efficiency") Short, concise queries are best. English language only. Don't include years or filters — use the days_back and num_results params instead. | |
| days_back | No | Only return papers published within the last N days. | |
| num_results | No | Number of results to return (1-100, default 16). First 50 results are free, then billed at $0.01/result for paid users. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as specifying the database name 'BGPT'. No mention of rate limits or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary function without missing critical details for selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., query includes usage tips). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'BGPT's database of scientific papers', and the method 'by keyword'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lookup_paper' which likely handles single paper retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for keyword-based searching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'lookup_paper'. No exclusions or alternative contexts are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.