Journal intelligence: indexing, quartile, APC, trust score, measured publication times
Verify a pasted reference list (plain text, BibTeX or RIS) against Crossref, OpenAlex, DataCite, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, PubMed and DBLP, plus Retraction Watch. Flags references that cannot be found (possibly fabricated), retracted papers and DOI mismatches. One check per day without an account; sign in for more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| references | Yes | The reference list text, one reference per line |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already denote read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it checks against multiple databases, flags specific issue types, and discloses account-based limits. This goes well beyond structural annotations.
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 compact and efficient, with three sentences covering purpose, data sources, flags, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, sources, error flags, and usage limits. It provides sufficient detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret expected results.
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% for the single 'references' parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying accepted formats (plain text, BibTeX, RIS) and structure (one reference per line), enriching what is provided in the 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'a pasted reference list', listing multiple data sources and specific checks (fabricated, retracted, DOI mismatches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on journals rather than reference verification.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a reference list to verify), specifies accepted formats (plain text, BibTeX, RIS), and notes a rate limit (one check per day without an account). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different in purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Side-by-side comparison of 2-4 journals by ISSN: quartile and indexing for any caller, trust score and APC for an identified one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issns | Yes | 2-4 ISSNs to compare, e.g. ["1361-8415", "1533-7928"] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that quartile and indexing are available for any caller, while trust score and APC are only for an identified (likely previously indexed) journal. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail response structure or error conditions.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and key supporting details. No filler or redundant wording. Every clause ('side-by-side', '2-4', 'by ISSN', the attribute lists) contributes essential information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what the caller can expect. It mentions the compared attributes (quartile, indexing, trust score, APC), giving a partial picture of the return content. However, it does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., JSON object, array). Given the tool's simplicity (one param) and the clarity of the description, it is largely sufficient.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the 'issns' parameter (2-4 ISSNs to compare with an example). The description reinforces this with '2-4 journals by ISSN' but does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for 100% schema coverage is 3, and the description only mildly reinforces rather than complements.
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?
The description clearly states the tool performs a side-by-side comparison of 2-4 journals by ISSN, listing specific attributes (quartile, indexing, trust score, APC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_journal (single journal) and search_journals (search). The verb is implicit in 'comparison' but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool: when comparing multiple journals side-by-side. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. The phrase 'for any caller' vs 'for an identified one' gives hints about data availability, which aids in selective usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full profile of one journal by ISSN: indexing, quartile, open-access status, scope and integrity signals (e.g. DOAJ withdrawal) for any caller. Trust score with breakdown, impact factor, APC and measured publication time require an identified caller. Use when the user asks about one journal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issn | Yes | The journal's ISSN, e.g. 1361-8415 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: data availability varies by caller identity (some fields require an identified caller), and it highlights integrity signals like DOAJ withdrawal. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool actually returns under different conditions.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: scope and contents, access restrictions, and usage context. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating return categories (indexing, quartile, OA status, scope, integrity signals, trust score breakdown, IF, APC, publication time) and clarifies caller-dependent availability. It also provides usage context, making it complete for a single-journal profile tool.
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%, and the schema already explains the 'issn' parameter with an example. The description confirms ISSN is the lookup key but adds no additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Full profile of one journal by ISSN') and enumerates specific content areas (indexing, quartile, OA status, scope, integrity signals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the singular scope ('one journal') versus search/compare 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?
Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks about one journal.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, though the singular/plural distinction implies the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search 46,000+ academic journals by title, ISSN, or publisher. Returns indexing status (WoS/Scopus/DOAJ), SJR quartile and open-access info for any caller; trust score and APC require an identified caller. Supports filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Journal title, ISSN (e.g. 0028-0836), or publisher name | |
| quartile | No | Optional SJR quartile filter: Q1, Q2, Q3 or Q4 | |
| max_results | No | Max results to return (1-20, default 10) | |
| open_access_only | No | Only return Open Access journals |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds behavioral context: return fields vary by caller identity (trust score/APC require identified caller), and supports filters. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose; no redundant details beyond adding behavioral nuance.
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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes what results contain (indexing status, quartile, OA info, trust score/APC) and the caller identity requirement. It does not enumerate all filter options, but the schema handles that.
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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying query can be title, ISSN, or publisher, and mentions 'Supports filters' which aligns with the optional parameters, increasing value.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('academic journals'), specifies search fields (title, ISSN, publisher), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_journal and compare_journals by emphasizing broad search and returned metadata.
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 states the tool's search capability and result scope, implying use for journal discovery by query. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like check_citations or get_journal, nor provide exclusions for when alternatives should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
check_citationscompare_journalsget_journalsearch_journalsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Conference & journal CFP deadlines, CCF/ICORE/QUALIS rankings, acceptance rates, research fields.
Scholarly literature search across nine sources
PRISMA 2020 systematic reviews as MCP tools - verified citations, IMRAD papers
DOAJ MCP — Directory of Open Access Journals
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: citation verification vs. journal search vs. single-journal profile vs. side-by-side comparison. The journal-related tools are differentiated by search/detail/compare actions, and the descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_citations, compare_journals, get_journal, search_journals. The verbs (check, compare, get, search) are distinct and match the tool's action, with no mixed conventions.
Four tools is an appropriate scope for a scholarly publishing/citation domain. Each tool covers a distinct core need without redundancy or excessive granularity, and the count is well within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the key workflows: verifying references, finding journals, retrieving detailed journal profiles, and comparing journals side-by-side. While it is read-focused rather than CRUD-based, that matches the domain's purpose, and there are no obvious dead ends.
