Skip to main content
Glama
AnonymousOnyx22

Citations MCP

by AnonymousOnyx22
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Format a citation

format_citation
Read-only

Format journal articles, books, websites, chapters, theses, reports, datasets, and preprints as APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago author-date, or IEEE citations using the details you provide.

Instructions

Format a journal article, book, website, book chapter, thesis, report, dataset or preprint as a citation in APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago author date or IEEE, from details you provide. Inputs: type (journal, book, website, chapter, thesis, report, dataset or preprint), title, and optional authors (family plus given names), year, container, publisher, city, edition, editors, translators, volume, issue, pages, doi, url, date_text, accessed, institution, degree, repository, report_number and style (apa7, mla9, chicago-ad, ieee or all). Pass all to get all three styles in one reply, each one with its style name on the line above it. Editors and translators are for books and take the same shape as authors: a book with editors and no authors puts the editors where the author goes, and a book with authors too carries the other names after the title, in the spot each style uses. Example prompt: "Cite this journal article in APA 7: Learning to learn by John Kenneth Smith and Alice Jones, 2020, Journal of Study Skills, volume 4, issue 2, pages 11-25."

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiNo
urlNo
cityNoPublisher city, used by Chicago for books.
typeYes
yearNo
issueNo
pagesNoFor example "11-25".
styleNoCitation style. Aliases such as APA, MLA 9 and Chicago are accepted. Valid styles: apa7, mla9, chicago-ad (Chicago author date), harvard and ieee, or all to get APA 7, MLA 9 and Chicago author date in one reply with a label above each one.apa7
titleYes
degreeNoThe degree of a thesis, like "Ph.D.".
volumeNo
authorsNo
editionNoFor example "2nd".
editorsNoEditors of a book or a chapter, same shape as authors. When a book has editors and no authors, they take the author's place in the citation.
accessedNoMLA access date, like "14 Oct. 2026".
containerNoJournal name, the book title for a chapter, or website name. Required for a journal article and for a chapter, since without it the citation would be missing the work it appears in.
date_textNoWebsite date as you want it shown, like "2026, October 14" for APA or "14 Oct. 2026" for MLA.
publisherNo
repositoryNoWhere a preprint was posted, like arXiv.
institutionNoThe university or organisation behind a thesis, a report or a dataset.
translatorsNoTranslators of a book, same shape as authors.
report_numberNoThe number of a report or a standard.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / container / description
      Previous value: -"Journal name, the book title for a chapter, or website name."New value: +"Journal name, the book title for a chapter, or website name. Required for a journal article and for a chapter, since without it the citation would be missing the work it appears in."
    • changedInput schema / properties / style / description
      Previous value: -"Citation style. Aliases such as APA, MLA 9 and Chicago are accepted. Valid styles: apa7, mla9, chicago-ad (Chicago author date)."New value: +"Citation style. Aliases such as APA, MLA 9 and Chicago are accepted. Valid styles: apa7, mla9, chicago-ad (Chicago author date), harvard and ieee, or all to get APA 7, MLA 9 and Chicago author date in one reply with a label above each one."
  2. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real behavioral detail: 'Pass all to get all three styles in one reply, each one with its style name on the line above it' discloses the output shape, and the editors/translators placement rule explains non-obvious formatting behavior. Minor inconsistency remains: it lists four styles up front but says 'all' returns three, which could confuse an agent about what 'all' covers.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and inputs are front-loaded and the example prompt is useful, but the paragraph is dense and the editors/translators sentence is convoluted. The 'all three styles' restatement duplicates the style parameter's own schema description rather than earning new space.

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 22-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input vocabulary, the multi-style return format, and the trickiest author/editor interaction, which is nearly enough to call it correctly. It stops short of saying which fields each source type actually needs beyond the container note, leaving type-specific requirements partly implicit.

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?

With only 59% schema coverage, the description compensates by naming nearly every parameter and glossing its meaning (authors as family plus given names, container, year, edition, etc.), plus a substantive rule about how editors and translators map into the citation when authors are present or absent. A few parameters (doi, url, volume, issue) are named without added semantics, keeping it below 5.

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 specific verb (format) and resource (a citation), enumerates the supported source types and the four styles, so the tool's job is unmistakable. It only hints at the sibling distinction via 'from details you provide' rather than naming cite_from_doi/cite_from_url/cite_from_isbn as the identifier-based alternatives.

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?

'from details you provide' implies the manual-entry case versus the identifier-driven siblings, and the example prompt shows a realistic invocation. But there is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of the alternatives, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools