Academic Research Search
Server Details
Academic research search across PubMed and arXiv
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct database or function (citations, arXiv, PubMed). However, get_citations can also search by topic, which might overlap with search_arxiv or search_pubmed in intent, though results differ.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: get_citations, search_arxiv, search_pubmed.
Three tools is a minimal but reasonable set for an academic search server. It covers major repositories and citation lookup, but leaves room for more specialized searches.
The server covers arXiv, PubMed, and Crossref citations, but lacks other major databases (e.g., Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore) and full-text retrieval, which are notable gaps for a comprehensive academic search tool.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_citationsBInspect
Get paper citations and metadata via Crossref. Look up by DOI or search by topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query for papers | |
| doi | No | Specific DOI to look up (e.g. "10.1038/nature12373") | |
| type | No | Filter by type: journal-article, book-chapter, proceedings-article | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20, default 10) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should cover behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or result handling. It only states the basic function, omitting any constraints or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple lookup tool but lacks output format details (no output schema) and does not address limits or pagination. Could benefit from specifying what metadata fields are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond noting two access modes (DOI vs topic), which maps to existing parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves citations and metadata via Crossref, using DOI lookup or topic search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed, which are also academic search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings, no prerequisites or when-not-to-use criteria. Only implies usage via 'Look up by DOI or search by topic' but lacks context for choosing between the two modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_arxivAInspect
Search arXiv preprint server for scientific papers. Best for CS, physics, math, and AI research.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query (e.g. "transformer architecture", "quantum computing") | |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20, default 10) | |
| category | No | arXiv category: cs, physics, math, q-bio, stat, econ |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Search' without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or response format. Lacks detail expected for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, second sentence adds usage context. No redundancy, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. Description covers basic purpose and usage context, but does not explain return format or error handling. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds little beyond schema; it mentions 'category' but no additional semantics. Adequate given parameter descriptions are already in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'arXiv preprint server for scientific papers'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_pubmed and get_citations by specifying arXiv and mentioning applicable fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use ('Best for CS, physics, math, and AI research'), implying for other domains other tools may be better. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specification is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_pubmedAInspect
Search PubMed biomedical literature database (NIH). Returns articles with titles, authors, journals, and links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query (e.g. "COVID-19 vaccines", "CRISPR gene editing") | |
| sort | No | Sort order: relevance or date | relevance |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20, default 10) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses return content (titles, authors, journals, links) but lacks details on behavior like rate limits, authentication, or that it is read-only. The information is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with output summary. Very efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nesting), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the database and return fields, which is sufficient for basic usage. Could mention limits or error conditions but not strictly necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool searches the PubMed biomedical literature database and specifies the return content (titles, authors, journals, links). The verb 'Search' and resource 'PubMed' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like search_arxiv and get_citations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is for searching biomedical literature from NIH. It implicitly suggests when to use (biomedical search) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!