Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Sidekick

by io.github.mlava

Export Citation

exportCitation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Export scholarly identifiers to a bibliography file format ready to write to disk or paste into a reference manager. Use when the user wants a file (.bib, .ris, .nbib, .xml, .rdf, .csv) for Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, RefWorks, BibTeX/LaTeX, Pandoc, or Excel. Format parameter is required: bib (BibTeX — LaTeX), ris (RIS — most widely supported by reference managers), csl (CSL JSON — Pandoc/Quarto), endnote-xml, endnote-refer, refworks, medline (NBIB — PubMed round-trips, clinical workflows), zotero-rdf, csv (spreadsheet-friendly), or txt (plain-text bibliography rendered with the optional style parameter — txt is the only format that uses style; the others have their own structured shape and ignore it). Accepts the same identifier formats as resolveIdentifier (DOI/PMID/PMCID/ISBN/arXiv/ISSN/ADS/WHO IRIS, prefixes tolerated), single or comma/newline-separated batch — one round trip per call. Returns: { content: string, format: string } where content is the entire bibliography in the requested format as a single string — write it to a file (.bib/.ris/.nbib/etc.) or paste it directly into the target tool. Use formatCitation instead when the user wants in-line citation text (manuscript, slide); use resolveIdentifier when they want raw structured metadata. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLocale for formatting (e.g. en-US)
textYesOne or more identifiers (DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs, etc.) separated by newlines or commas
styleNoCitation style (used only for txt export)
formatYesExport format

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatYesThe export format that was produced.
contentYesThe entire bibliography in the requested format, as one string.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial context: auth requirements (SCHOLAR_API_KEY, RAPIDAPI_KEY), rate limits, anonymous access, retry safety, and format-specific behavior (txt uses style; others ignore it). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 long but every sentence provides necessary information: purpose, use cases, format semantics, identifier handling, return shape, alternatives, safety, auth, and rate limits. It is logically ordered and free of fluff, earning its length.

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 the complexity (10 formats, 4 params, auth, alternatives), the description covers all bases: input formats, return shape, alternative tools, rate limits, and API keys. It is even self-contained enough to guide an agent without needing to inspect the schema or output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches each parameter. It explains every format enum value with use cases (BibTeX for LaTeX, RIS for reference managers, NBIB for PubMed), clarifies that style only applies to txt, and details the identifier formats accepted for the text parameter. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource: 'Export scholarly identifiers to a bibliography file format'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating when to use exportCitation (file generation) vs. formatCitation (in-line text) and resolveIdentifier (raw metadata).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user wants a file (.bib, .ris, .nbib, .xml, .rdf, .csv) for Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote...'. Also explicitly names alternatives: 'Use formatCitation instead when the user wants in-line citation text; use resolveIdentifier when they want raw structured metadata.'

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