xpay Academic Research Collection

paper-search-advanced

Search for academic papers with advanced filtering options

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return
`query`	Yes	Search query for papers
`sortBy`	No	Field to sort by	relevance
`yearEnd`	No	Ending year for filtering (inclusive)
`sortOrder`	No	Sort order	desc
`yearStart`	No	Starting year for filtering (inclusive)
`minCitations`	No	Minimum number of citations
`fieldsOfStudy`	No	Fields of study to filter by
`openAccessOnly`	No	Only include open access papers
`publicationTypes`	No	Publication types to filter by

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and mentions 'advanced filtering' but reveals nothing about result handling, pagination, error behavior, or any side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits broader context such as typical use cases, return value expectations, or limitations, leaving the agent without enough operational context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers 100% of the 10 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'advanced filtering options' vaguely hints at the available filters but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for academic papers and mentions 'advanced filtering options' as a differentiator. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like papers-search-basic beyond the 'advanced' modifier.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as search, search_papers, or papers-search-basic. The term 'advanced' implies a use case but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative references.

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

All xpay Academic Research Collection 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

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

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.

Naming Consistency1/5

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).

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?