xpay Academic Research Collection

read_semantic_paper

Read and extract text content from a Semantic Scholar paper.

Args:
    paper_id: Semantic Scholar paper ID, Paper identifier in one of the following formats:
        - Semantic Scholar ID (e.g., "649def34f8be52c8b66281af98ae884c09aef38b")
        - DOI:<doi> (e.g., "DOI:10.18653/v1/N18-3011")
        - ARXIV:<id> (e.g., "ARXIV:2106.15928")
        - MAG:<id> (e.g., "MAG:112218234")
        - ACL:<id> (e.g., "ACL:W12-3903")
        - PMID:<id> (e.g., "PMID:19872477")
        - PMCID:<id> (e.g., "PMCID:2323736")
        - URL:<url> (e.g., "URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15928v1")
    save_path: Directory where the PDF is/will be saved (default: './downloads').
Returns:
    str: The extracted text content of the paper.

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 does disclose that the PDF is saved to save_path and that the return is a string, which is useful. However, it omits details about whether the tool downloads the PDF, how errors are handled, or potential side effects like directory creation or overwriting, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a short one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every part is necessary, and the format list is organized with bullet points, making it easy to scan. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type well. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not mention prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., network access, paper availability), leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 schema has zero descriptions for parameters (coverage 0%), and the description compensates fully. It provides an extensive explanation of paper_id with eight allowed formats and concrete examples, plus clarifies save_path with its default value. This is far beyond the minimal schema information.

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 ('Read and extract text content') and the resource ('Semantic Scholar paper'). It distinguishes itself from sibling read_* tools by specifying the Semantic Scholar source and providing multiple identifier formats, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description: use this when you want to read a Semantic Scholar paper. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The list of accepted ID formats includes ARXIV, which could overlap with read_arxiv_paper, but no guidance is given for choosing between them.

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?