Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Sidekick

by io.github.mlava

Check Open Access

checkOpenAccess
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a single scholarly work is openly accessible and where to find the best legal version. Use when the user asks 'is this open access?', 'where can I read this for free?', or wants the OA license/version before reusing or redistributing. Sourced from Unpaywall. Resolves DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ISBN/ADS inputs to a DOI before lookup; inputs that don't map to a DOI return doi=null and reason='no_doi'. arXiv inputs check the linked published-journal DOI when arXiv records one; a preprint without one returns doi=null and reason='no_doi' (Unpaywall does not index arXiv preprints, which are freely readable on arXiv regardless). Single identifier per call — does NOT accept comma/newline batches; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Returns: { doi, resolvedFrom?, reason?, result } where result has isOa (boolean), oaStatus ('gold' | 'green' | 'hybrid' | 'bronze' | 'closed'), title, bestLocation ({url, hostType: 'publisher' | 'repository', license, version: 'submittedVersion' | 'acceptedVersion' | 'publishedVersion'} or null), and locations (array of the same shape); result is null when no DOI could be resolved and reason explains why ('no_doi'). No sibling tool overlaps this — resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not OA status. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier; Unpaywall is queried server-side with its own caching.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesA single scholarly identifier to check. 1–500 characters. Non-DOI inputs are resolved to a DOI server-side before the lookup; if no DOI can be derived, the tool returns doi=null with reason='no_doi'. Pass exactly one identifier — comma/newline batches are NOT accepted by this tool; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Accepted: DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv ID, ISBN, or NASA ADS bibcode (with or without prefixes).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiYes
reasonNo
resultYesOpen-access status, or null when no DOI resolved.
resolvedFromNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: DOI resolution behavior, doi=null and reason='no_doi' failure modes, arXiv special-case handling, Unpaywall as the data source, server-side caching, rate limits, and API key options. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and paints a complete picture of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, source, resolution behavior, failure modes, batching constraint, return shape, sibling differentiation, safety hints, and authentication all serve a distinct purpose. The most decision-relevant information (what and when) is front-loaded before the lower-level API details.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers intended use, input constraints, resolution edge cases, return structure, failure behavior, authentication, rate limits, and sibling relationship. An agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly, and nothing important is left to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's id description already documents accepted ID types and the no-batch rule. The description reinforces and expands this by explaining resolution semantics, the arXiv exception, and the loop-one-call-per-identifier guidance. This adds genuine meaning beyond the schema, though the schema already carried most of the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a single scholarly work is openly accessible and where to find the best legal version.' It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating 'No sibling tool overlaps this — resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not OA status.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the other identifier-related tools.

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?

The description gives concrete trigger phrases ('is this open access?', 'where can I read this for free?') and a use case (OA license/version before reusing). It also states when not to use it (single identifier per call, no batches, loop for multiple papers) and names the closest sibling alternative that does NOT overlap. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool.

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

All Scholar Sidekick 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

A4.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: auditBibliography is the batch counterpart to verifyCitation, checkOpenAccess focuses on OA status, checkRetraction on retractions, resolveIdentifier returns raw metadata, formatCitation produces citation strings, and exportCitation produces files. Descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to prevent confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun camelCase pattern: audit, check, check, export, format, resolve, verify + object. There is no mixing of styles or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of citation verification and formatting. Each tool covers a distinct operational need (batch audit, single verify, OA, retraction, format, export, resolve) without bloat.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full citation lifecycle: verifying a single citation, auditing entire bibliographies, checking retraction and open-access status, formatting citations, exporting to common bibliography formats, and resolving identifiers to metadata. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.

Resources