xpay Academic Research Collection

read_crossref_paper

Attempt to read and extract text content from a CrossRef paper.

Args:
    paper_id: CrossRef DOI (e.g., '10.1038/nature12373').
    save_path: Directory where the PDF is/will be saved (default: './downloads').
Returns:
    str: Message indicating that direct paper reading is not supported.
    
Note:
    CrossRef is a citation database and doesn't provide direct paper content.
    Use the DOI to access the paper through the publisher's website.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper_id`	Yes
`save_path`	No		./downloads

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a message indicating direct paper reading is not supported, explaining the underlying limitation. It also adds context about the save_path for a PDF. However, there is slight ambiguity about whether any download actually occurs before the unsupported message is returned, given the mention of 'PDF is/will be saved'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with an action sentence, Args, Returns, and Note sections, placing the core behavior first. It is reasonably concise, though the Returns and Note sections somewhat repeat the 'not supported' message, which could be condensed.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the behavioral limitation, parameter meanings, and return type. It could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., whether a PDF is actually downloaded or if the save_path is used at all), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description enriches the schema by specifying paper_id as a CrossRef DOI with an example ('10.1038/nature12373') and explaining save_path as the directory where the PDF is/will be saved. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this added detail is essential for correct usage and fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Attempt to read and extract text content from a CrossRef paper.' It distinguishes the tool from sibling read_* tools by specifying the CrossRef source. The subsequent clarification that reading is not supported is transparent and does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 provides context by noting that CrossRef is a citation database and doesn't provide direct paper content, and advises using the DOI through the publisher's website. This gives clear guidance on when not to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative sibling tools for downloading or retrieving metadata (e.g., download_crossref or get_crossref_paper_by_doi).

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?