scopus-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Scopus Search

scopus_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Scopus publications using native query syntax, returning paginated Elsevier JSON with results and cursors for literature reviews and bibliometric analysis.

Instructions

Search Scopus publications with its native query syntax. Returns one page of the original Elsevier JSON, including search-results, entry and pagination. Example: TITLE-ABS-KEY(machine learning) AND PUBYEAR > 2020. Credentials come from the server environment. Access to views and cursor pagination depends on your Scopus entitlements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ver`	No	Resource version flags: facetexpand, allexpand, new; comma or semicolon separated.
`date`	No	Publication year or inclusive year range, e.g. 2024 or 2020-2024.
`sort`	No	Up to three comma-separated sort fields; + ascending, - descending, e.g. -coverDate,+creator.
`subj`	No	Scopus subject area code to filter by, e.g. COMP.
`view`	No	Response view. Defaults to STANDARD; COMPLETE and COMPONENT require the relevant Scopus entitlements. Overridden by field.	STANDARD
`alias`	No	Whether author-ID searches include superseded profiles. Omitted values use the API default of true.
`count`	No	Maximum results in this page. Defaults to 25; up to 200 for STANDARD or 25 for COMPLETE/COMPONENT. With field, Elsevier determines the effective view and limit.
`field`	No	Comma-separated response fields, e.g. identifier,title,doi. Overrides view; omitted fields remain absent in the response.
`query`	Yes	Native Scopus publication query, e.g. TITLE-ABS-KEY(machine learning) AND PUBYEAR > 2020.
`reqId`	No	Caller-supplied request identifier for Elsevier support.
`start`	No	Zero-based result offset. Use instead of cursor. The requested window start + count must not exceed 5000; omitted count means 25.
`cursor`	No	Use * for the first cursor page, then search-results.cursor["@next"] from the previous response. Use instead of start; keep the query and other options unchanged.
`facets`	No	Native facet expression, e.g. pubyear;subjarea(count=10,sort=fd).
`content`	No	Scopus content collection to search: all, core, or dummy.
`suppressNavLinks`	No	Suppress top-level navigation links. Omitted values use the API default of false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search-results`	Yes	Native Scopus search response, including page metadata and entries.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.1Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds meaningfully beyond them: credentials come from the server environment (no auth handling by the caller), responses are one page of raw Elsevier JSON with pagination, and view/cursor availability is gated by entitlements. This is useful operational context, though it does not quantify entitlement tiers 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, return shape, example, credentials, entitlements), front-loaded with the purpose. Slightly dense, but no sentence is purely filler; the return-shape sentence is only partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, return model, auth source, and entitlement gating. The offset-pagination 5000 limit and view/count ceilings live in the schema, so little is missing, though the relationship to sibling search/retrieval tools could be spelled out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-cutting semantics not obvious from individual params: the response is a single page, includes pagination metadata, and cursor/view behavior is entitlement-dependent. It does not enumerate the parameters themselves, which is fine given the schema.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Search Scopus publications') with the query syntax being native Scopus. The publication focus implicitly separates it from sibling tools like author_search, affiliation_search and citation_overview, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example query and the note that view/cursor access depends on Scopus entitlements imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings such as author_search or citation_overview. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server