Search academic papers from Semantic Scholar.
Args:
query: Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning').
year: Optional year filter (e.g., '2019', '2016-2020', '2010-', '-2015').
max_results: Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10).
Returns:
List of paper metadata in dictionary format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It provides return format and parameter details but does not explicitly disclose that the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool, the first sentence implies a non-mutating operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, using concise bullets. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.
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 relatively simple search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It could mention pagination or potential rate limits, but these are not essential for a basic search invocation.
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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter. It offers detailed format examples for year ('2019', '2016-2020', '2010-', '-2015') and states the default for max_results, adding significant value beyond the schema's type declarations.
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 it searches academic papers from Semantic Scholar, specifying both the action and the specific source. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed, which target different databases.
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?
The description implies usage for queries against the Semantic Scholar database but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other search tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the source name.
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.