Skip to main content
Glama

Opencitations

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Citations

citations
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Who cites paper [DOI]" / "what papers reference [DOI]" / "incoming citations to [paper]" / "what work has cited [study]" — DOIs that CITE the given DOI (reverse-direction from references). Use for impact analysis, follow-on research discovery, "is this paper influential" questions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
itemsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / citations
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "DOIs that cite the given DOI",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / count
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / items
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "author_sc": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "cited": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "citing": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "creation": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "journal_sc": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "oci": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "timespan": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "doi": "10.1371/journal.pone.0123456"
+  },
+  {
+    "doi": "10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.001"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "citations": {
+      "description": "DOIs that cite the given DOI",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional context is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral scope beyond annotations: it clearly defines the returned entities as citing DOIs and the reverse direction from references.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and uses natural language examples plus use cases without redundant filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, the directionality relative to references, and why an agent would use it. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The description frames 'doi' as the paper whose incoming citations are returned through phrases like 'paper [DOI]' and 'the given DOI', plus schema examples with DOI strings. This is sufficient for a single obvious parameter, though an explicit definition of the doi parameter would be even stronger.

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 states a clear verb-resource relationship: it retrieves DOIs that cite a given DOI. It also distinguishes itself from the 'references' sibling by explicitly marking this as the reverse direction, so an agent can select it correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete use cases: impact analysis, follow-on research discovery, and influence assessment. It signals the relationship to 'references' as the opposite direction, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'citation_count' for counting use cases.

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

All Opencitations toolsInspect
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.

Resources