BGPT Scientific Data
Server Details
Search Daily-Updated Scientific Data
- 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 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve completely different purposes: lookup_paper retrieves a specific paper by DOI, while search_papers finds papers by keywords. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: lookup_paper and search_papers. The naming is consistent and predictable, with only a minor discrepancy in singular vs plural noun forms.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for a scientific data domain. While the tools cover basic lookup and search, the scope is narrow and would benefit from additional tools like list_authors or get_citation.
The server covers core paper lookup and keyword search, but lacks common operations such as browsing by author, filtering by year, or retrieving references. This leaves notable gaps for typical scientific data workflows.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_paperLook up paper by DOIARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Look up a single paper by its DOI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes | The DOI of the paper (e.g. "10.1038/s41586-024-07386-0"). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is safe and idempotent. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, output schema present), the description is adequate. It could mention the unique lookup nature, but overall completeness is high.
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% with a clear description and example in the schema. The description merely reiterates 'by its DOI' without adding new meaning, so baseline score applies.
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 'look up' and the resource 'paper', along with the unique identifier 'DOI'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_papers' by specifying a single paper lookup by a unique identifier.
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 use when a DOI is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_papers'. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_papersSearch scientific papersBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search BGPT's database of scientific papers by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms (e.g. "CRISPR gene editing efficiency") Short, concise queries are best. English language only. Don't include years or filters — use the days_back and num_results params instead. | |
| days_back | No | Only return papers published within the last N days. | |
| num_results | No | Number of results to return (1-100, default 16). First 50 results are free, then billed at $0.01/result for paid users. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, which describe safe, repeatable behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or what happens with no results). It does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description is a single sentence (12 words) that is front-loaded and efficient. It avoids unnecessary text, but could be slightly more structured to highlight key aspects. However, for a simple search tool, this is sufficiently concise.
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 tool has only 3 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations provide safety context, the description is largely complete for its simplicity. It does not specify result ordering or scope of 'BGPT's database', but the parameter details and output schema likely compensate. The sibling tool 'lookup_paper' is not addressed, but the core functionality is covered.
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?
Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The 'query' parameter description provides additional helpful guidance on formatting (short, concise, no years/filters). The description text itself does not add parameter info beyond the schema, but the schema does an excellent job explaining semantics, including defaults and constraints (e.g., num_results range and billing).
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 'Search BGPT's database of scientific papers by keyword.', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'lookup_paper', which likely serves a different purpose (e.g., retrieving a specific paper by ID).
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?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'lookup_paper'. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria. The parameter description for 'query' gives usage tips (e.g., short queries, no filters), but this is parameter-level, not tool-level selection advice.
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!