Phở Research Tools

Check retractions

check_retractions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check DOIs for retractions, expressions of concern and corrections, using Crossref (which includes Retraction Watch data). Status per DOI: retracted, concern, corrected, other_notice, no_notice (nothing on record), not_in_crossref, invalid_doi, rate_limited or lookup_failed (the DOI could not be checked, which is not a clean result). Works for a single paper or a whole reference list. verify_references already includes this check, so use this tool for DOIs that have not just been through verify_references. A DOI the same caller checked in the last hour is answered again at no cost to the allowance.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dois`	Yes	DOIs, bare (10.1000/xyz) or as https://doi.org/ links.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`quota`	Yes
`counts`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / quota / properties / hint
```
Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "low",
+    "intro"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / quota / properties / upgrade
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / quota / properties / plan / enum
```
Previous value: -[
-  "anon",
-  "free"
-]New value: +[
+  "anon",
+  "free",
+  "pro"
+]
```
First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it enumerates the full status set, warns that lookup_failed is not a clean result, notes rate_limited as a possible outcome, and discloses the one-hour caching/allowance behavior. These are behavioral traits the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

The source, status taxonomy, and usage routing are all front-loaded and each clause carries information. It is dense in a single block, and the long status enumeration could be more scannable, but no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with full annotation and output-schema coverage, the description covers source, semantics of each possible status, batch scope, and the sibling relationship. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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% and the single parameter is documented in-schema (bare DOI or https://doi.org/ link), so the description does not need to repeat format rules. It does add scope meaning by indicating the parameter accepts a full reference list as well as one paper, which is useful beyond the array 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check DOIs for retractions...') plus the underlying source (Crossref/Retraction Watch) and the exact status taxonomy returned. It explicitly positions itself against verify_references, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: use this tool for DOIs that have not just been through verify_references, since that tool already performs this check. It also states the scale ('single paper or a whole reference list') and a cost-based reuse condition for callers repeating a lookup within an hour.

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

All Phở Research Tools 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.