BGPT Scientific Data

Look up paper by DOI

lookup_paper

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a single paper by its DOI.

Args: doi: The DOI of the paper (e.g. "10.1038/s41586-024-07386-0"). output_format: "evidence" for compact claim-level evidence (default), "legacy" for original paper metadata, or "full" for both.

Returns: An envelope with found status and the paper in result, or a not-found message. A found paper counts as one result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	Yes
`output_format`	No		evidence

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedJul 16, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / doi / description
```
Removed value: -"The DOI of the paper (e.g. \"10.1038/s41586-024-07386-0\")."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / output_format
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "evidence",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedJun 30, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_key

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

addedInput schema / properties / doi / description

Added value: +"The DOI of the paper (e.g. \"10.1038/s41586-024-07386-0\")."

AddedApr 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it returns an envelope with found status, a paper in result or a not-found message, and notes that a found paper counts as one result. It also explains the output_format options, providing transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, is appropriately concise, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, return envelope structure, and the not-found case. No critical information appears to be missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: doi includes a concrete example, and output_format enumerates the three possible values ('evidence', 'legacy', 'full') with their meanings and the default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function as 'Look up a single paper by its DOI.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_papers, which implies broader search behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when you have a specific DOI and need a single paper, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool search_papers as an alternative or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All BGPT Scientific Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are clearly distinct: one retrieves a specific paper by DOI, the other searches for papers based on a query. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (lookup_paper, search_papers), with a minor pluralization difference that does not affect consistency. The naming style is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels borderline thin for a scientific data domain. However, both tools are substantial and cover the core functions of searching and retrieving papers, so it is not overly limiting.

Completeness4/5

The two tools cover the primary workflow of searching and retrieving papers by DOI. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no advanced filtering or sorting), but there are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose of accessing claim-level evidence.

Resources

Need Help?