Skip to main content
Glama

Retractions

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check Retraction

check_retraction
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a paper (by DOI) has been retracted, according to Crossref/Retraction Watch (keyless). Returns retracted:true/false with the evidence (title marker + retraction-notice link). NOTE: 'not retracted' means no retraction is on record — coverage depends on the publisher, so it is not definitive proof the paper is clean.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiYesA DOI, e.g. "10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103768" (or a doi.org URL).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "doi": "10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103768"
+  },
+  {
+    "doi": "https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12373"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it adds critical context: output structure (retracted:true/false with evidence), keyless access, and the interpretive nuance of 'not retracted' meaning no record, not definitively clean. This enriches the openWorldHint from 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 two tightly written sentences plus a necessary note. It front-loads the core action, then describes output and caveat without redundancy.

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 required parameter and no output schema, this description is fully complete. It covers what it does, what it returns, and the limitations of a negative answer, all while annotations cover safety.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'doi' parameter, including format examples. The description only repeats 'by DOI' without adding new semantic detail; baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking if a paper (by DOI) has been retracted. It specifies the data sources (Crossref/Retraction Watch) and differentiates from siblings like search_retractions by focusing on DOI-based validation.

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 implies when to use: when you have a DOI and need retraction status. The caveat about coverage indicates limitations (not definitive), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use when X, not when Y'.

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

All Retractions 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