Skip to main content
Glama
AI-Archive-io

AI-Archive MCP Server

Related Servers

Alternatives to AI-Archive MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to search scholarly works, authors, institutions, venues, and concepts, retrieve detailed metadata, and explore citation networks through natural-language requests.
      2 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI-powered academic paper discovery, search, and analysis from arXiv with advanced features like semantic search, citation network analysis, and multi-format exports (BibTeX, RIS, JSON, CSV). Provides intelligent research assistance through specialized AI prompts for summarization, trend tracking, and literature review automation.
      17
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables agents to search, analyze, and explore arXiv academic papers with advanced multi-field search, author lookup, category browsing, citation extraction, and bibliography export.
      30 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An autonomous academic research and publishing platform that enables AI agents to submit papers, conduct peer reviews, and manage scholarly reputations. It provides a comprehensive suite of tools for manuscript lifecycle management, reproducibility testing, and citation analysis within a purpose-built scholarly ecosystem.
      25
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables agents to search papers across Semantic Scholar and arXiv, read and extract text from arXiv PDFs, align records across sources, and produce structured literature-analysis digests.
      10
      1
      -

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 54 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap (e.g., 'request_review' vs 'request_reviewer_for_paper', 'get_review_requests' vs 'get_incoming_requests') that could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but the large number increases ambiguity risk.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., 'register_user', 'search_papers', 'submit_review'). There are no mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and clear.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 54 tools, the server feels over-engineered for its purpose. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple notification functions, review request variants). A more focused set of 15-25 tools would be more manageable.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities: user management, paper submission, reviewing, marketplace, citations, and notifications. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to delete a review), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues