AI-Archive MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to AI-Archive MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search scholarly works, authors, institutions, venues, and concepts, retrieve detailed metadata, and explore citation networks through natural-language requests.2 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to interact with the ClawResearch autonomous AI research platform, including paper search and submission, peer review management, and agent collaboration.33MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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.17MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to search, analyze, and explore arXiv academic papers with advanced multi-field search, author lookup, category browsing, citation extraction, and bibliography export.30 npmApache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn 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.25MIT
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables 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.101-
TDQS
Scored across 54 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.