Google Search MCP Server

academic_search

Search academic papers and research documents across sites like arXiv, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. Filter by publication date and retrieve PDF results.

Instructions

Search academic papers and research documents

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "academic_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Research query
`fileType`	No	File type (PDF only)	pdf
`dateRange`	No	Publication date range	y1
`sites`	No	Academic sites to search
`maxResults`	No	Maximum results to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the purpose. It omits important details: whether it searches only the default sites, output format, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overly brief—a single sentence that does not justify its length for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness, resulting in under-specification.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, 2 enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides virtually no context about behavior, return values, or limitations. It is completely inadequate for informed selection and invocation.

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 fully describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 academic papers and research documents, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like google_search or research_assistant, but the academic focus is evident.

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish usage.

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

Deploy Server