check_citationsVerify 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
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.