Scholar Sidekick

Check Retraction

checkRetraction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or had an expression of concern raised. Use when the user asks 'has this paper been retracted?' or wants to verify a paper's standing before citing it (clinical, regulatory, evidence-synthesis contexts). To check a WHOLE reference list for retractions (e.g. 'check all these citations for retractions' at the end of a literature review, a guideline or a systematic review), use auditBibliography instead — one call runs the retraction check plus the fabrication check on up to 25 entries. Sourced from Crossref updated-by (which mirrors Retraction Watch). Resolves DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ADS inputs to a DOI before lookup; ISBN inputs always return doi=null and reason='no_doi' since books are not in the retraction graph. arXiv inputs check the linked published-journal DOI when arXiv records one; a preprint without one returns doi=null and reason='no_doi' (preprints are outside the Crossref retraction graph — arXiv marks withdrawals on the abstract page instead). Single identifier per call — does NOT accept comma/newline batches; for a handful of papers loop one call per identifier, for a bibliography use auditBibliography. Returns: { doi, resolvedFrom?, reason?, result } where result has isRetracted, hasCorrections, hasConcern (booleans), notices (array of {type, label, doi, date, source} where type is a raw Crossref update type such as 'retraction', 'correction', 'erratum' or 'expression_of_concern'), and title; result is null when no DOI could be resolved and reason explains why ('no_doi'). resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not retraction status; auditBibliography includes this check for every entry of a bibliography. 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; Crossref is queried server-side with its own caching.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	A 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, or NASA ADS bibcode (with or without prefixes). ISBN inputs are accepted but always return doi=null since books are not in the retraction graph.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doi`	Yes	Resolved DOI, or null when none could be derived.
`reason`	No	Why result is null (e.g. 'no_doi').
`result`	Yes	Retraction status, or null when no DOI resolved.
`resolvedFrom`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: data provenance (Crossref `updated-by`, mirroring Retraction Watch), server-side DOI resolution, ISBN and arXiv-preprint edge cases returning reason='no_doi', free-tier rate limiting, and auth options (SCHOLAR_API_KEY / RAPIDAPI_KEY). No contradiction with the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the key sibling routing, then progressively narrows to resolution behavior, return shape, and auth. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries operative detail; the return-shape enumeration is the one section that runs long given an output schema exists.

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?

Given a single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: input types, resolution fallbacks, batch limitations, auth/rate-limit expectations, and the sibling to use for bibliographies. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates the accepted identifier types and single-identifier rule already in the schema. It does add marginal practical value by explaining the loop-one-call-per-identifier workaround and the ISBN/arXiv resolution outcomes, which go slightly beyond the schema wording.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: checking whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or flagged with an expression of concern. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming auditBibliography for batch/reference-list checks and noting that resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not retraction status.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasing ('has this paper been retracted?', verify standing before citing) and a clear when-not/alternative rule: for whole reference lists use auditBibliography, which runs this check plus fabrication across up to 25 entries. Also clarifies that batches are not accepted and that looping is the alternative for a handful of papers.

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

All Scholar Sidekick 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.