graphrag-ts citation provenance

retraction_propagation

Judge whether a retraction propagates to a paper through its citation graph: retraction evidence is weighted by source tier, the citing context is checked for an acknowledgement, and the tool returns CONTESTED, SUPPORTED or ABSTAINED with the evidence path behind the verdict. Use it after integrity_paper_status when the question is "does this retraction reach this paper". It abstains instead of guessing when reference coverage is thin. Returns: verdict, confidence, the evidence path that produced it, and abstention details when the verdict is ABSTAINED. Paid: $0.02 per call (x402 on Base, POST /api/v1/judge); a keyed MCP session also unlocks it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "retraction_propagation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	No	DOI of the paper, e.g. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.
`paper_id`	No	OpenAlex work id, e.g. W2117847125. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / doi

Added value: +{
+  "description": "DOI of the paper, e.g. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / paper_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "OpenAlex work id, e.g. W2117847125. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the scoring mechanics, the abstention policy on thin reference coverage, the exact return fields, and the pricing/auth model ($0.02 per call, x402 on Base, POST endpoint, keyed MCP session). Cost and reliability behavior are things an agent cannot get from structured fields here.

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-loads the core mechanic and verdicts, then usage, returns, and pricing in a sensible order with no filler. The returns sentence slightly repeats the earlier verdict enumeration (mentioning ABSTAINED twice), a minor 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (verdict, confidence, evidence path, abstention details) plus cost and access requirements. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the doi/paper_id mutual-exclusivity rule and example formats are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('judge whether a retraction propagates') on a specific resource (a paper via its citation graph), and spells out the mechanism (source-tier weighting, acknowledgement check) and the three possible verdicts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as integrity_paper_status or integrity_evidence_audit.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger phrase ("does this retraction reach this paper") and sequencing relative to a sibling ("use it after integrity_paper_status"). It does not name a competing alternative or state outright when not to use it, so it stops short of the top band.

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

All graphrag-ts citation provenance 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.