Analyze the citation network for a specific paper
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Depth of citation network (1 or 2) | |
| paperId | Yes | Paper ID (Semantic Scholar ID, arXiv ID, DOI, etc.) | |
| citationsLimit | No | Maximum number of citations to analyze per paper | |
| referencesLimit | No | Maximum number of references to analyze per paper |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool analyzes a citation network but does not disclose details about how the analysis works, whether it makes multiple API calls, what limits mean operationally, or what output to expect. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the core action.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise but lacks additional valuable context that could be included without verbosity, such as indicating what the analysis output looks like.
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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' produces, how depth and limits affect results, or how it relates to sibling citation/reference tools. The description leaves significant gaps in understanding.
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% with all parameters fully described (depth, paperId, citationsLimit, referencesLimit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 'analyze' and the resource 'citation network for a specific paper', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list citations or references. However, it doesn't specify what 'analyze' entails or differentiate it explicitly from papers-citations and papers-references.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like papers-citations or papers-references. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.
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.
Multiple tools appear to serve the same purpose, such as search_arxiv and search-arxiv, or papers-search-basic, paper-search-advanced, search_papers, and search. The download/read tools for different sources follow similar patterns, but some return 'not supported' messages, making it unclear which tools are actually functional.
Tool names mix snake_case, kebab-case, and bare verbs without a consistent pattern. For example, about_nanci, analysis-citation-network, download-full-paper-arxiv, fetch, and search_arxiv all coexist, and the same action for different sources alternates conventions (search-arxiv vs search_arxiv).
With 53 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped. Many tools are redundant or near-duplicates, such as six source-specific search tools plus an aggregate search, and the inclusion of both paper and clinical trial tools in one server creates unnecessary bloat.
The server covers a wide range of research workflows, including search, download, read, citations, authors, and clinical trials. However, several tools (crossref/pubmed download/read) are non-functional dead ends, and the redundancy makes it harder to navigate the surface.