xpay Academic Research Collection

search_bibtex

Search for academic papers and return BibTeX citations. Searches DBLP (computer science) and Semantic Scholar (broad academic coverage) for comprehensive results. Returns formatted BibTeX entries ready to use in LaTeX documents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`num`	No	Maximum number of results to return (1-50, default: 10)
`year`	No	Filter by minimum publication year (e.g., 2020 for papers from 2020 onwards)
`query`	Yes	Search query - paper title, topic, or keywords (e.g., 'attention is all you need', 'transformer neural networks', 'deep learning optimization')
`author`	No	Filter by author name (e.g., 'Vaswani', 'Hinton')

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains that the tool aggregates results from two sources, returns formatted BibTeX entries ready for LaTeX, and implies a read-only search operation. This goes beyond a simple 'Search papers' statement and provides useful behavioral context for the agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds key details about sources and output format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, rich schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, which sources it uses, and the output format. It doesn't mention potential quirks like duplicate handling across sources or pagination, but these are not critical for a search tool with this level of schema documentation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions for all four parameters, including examples for query and author, a range for num, and a clarifying explanation for year. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema states, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Search for academic papers and return BibTeX citations', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (like search_arxiv or search_pubmed) by mentioning the two sources (DBLP and Semantic Scholar) and the BibTeX output format, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 specifying that it searches DBLP for computer science and Semantic Scholar for broad academic coverage, implying when it is appropriate to use. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state exclusions, but the source coverage and citation format give a clear usage context, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' benchmark.

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?