Skip to main content
Glama

omniseek_field_skeleton

Map a research field's shape by retrieving its citation neighborhood from a topic or chosen seed papers, distinguishing foundational works by citation count and frontier by date.

Instructions

Map a research field's shape — use WHEN you need its citation neighborhood (foundational core by citations vs frontier by date) to cluster yourself, from a topic or seed papers.

Fully-qualified MCP name: mcp__omniseek__omniseek_field_skeleton (server name is omniseek; there is no omniseek-eye server).

A thin graph primitive, NO judgment: given query (auto-picks top-relevance seeds) or seeds (OpenAlex work-ids YOU chose as anchors — preferred once you know the field), it returns the field's complete citation neighborhood: every node with raw metadata, date, and ONE signal in_degree (how many in-field papers cite it).

YOU are the cartographer — do ALL the intelligence over this raw data: • SEEDS: if the auto-seeds are off (e.g. a generic survey crept in), re-call with seeds=[...] you pick from the nodes. • SOURCE: source="openalex" (default, rich for established fields) or source="s2" (Semantic Scholar — far better arXiv coverage + accurate citation counts; use it for recent/bleeding-edge fields where OpenAlex's graph is sparse). s2 nodes also carry influential (S2 flags the citation link to a seed as substantive, not a drive-by) and intent (methodology/background/result, when S2 classified it): strong cues for what to read first, and contexts ([{snippet, intents}]: the RAW citing SENTENCE(s) S2 extracted). READ a snippet to judge a citation's POLARITY yourself (does the citer SUPPORT, CONTRAST/refute, or merely MENTION the seed): OmniSeek exposes the sentence, YOU classify; S2 has no polarity field and OmniSeek makes no such judgment. contexts is empty when S2 never parsed the citing PDF. For a young/hot field the best "graph" is often a human-curated survey/awesome-list, fetch that yourself instead. • FOUNDATIONAL vs FRONTIER: high in_degree = the foundational core; recent date (filter it yourself) + your relevance read = the frontier. There is no frontier flag — you judge it. • DATA HYGIENE: OpenAlex occasionally has a poisoned title (e.g. a 14k-citation paper titled "AI Consciousness" by T.B. Brown IS a corrupted GPT-3 record). You recognize these — no code does. Use a node's url to verify / omniseek_read to read the real paper. • Cluster + narrate relevance and sub-fields from titles + concept + your knowledge. • GAP DETECTION (your seed set's blind spots): each non-seed node carries seed_ref_freq (how many of YOUR seeds reference it = a foundational ref your reading list is MISSING) and seed_cite_freq (how many seeds it cites = a frontier citer you are MISSING). Sort non-seed nodes by these to find what your input lacks. edges (the in-corpus [citer, cited] citation DAG) lets you build the citation / co-citation / bibliographic-coupling maps yourself (co-authorship: use omniseek_coauthors). • BUDGET: there is an overall wall-clock cap (deadline_s, ~25s default). On a slow/throttling S2 the assemble bails early with a PARTIAL map (_meta.deadline_hit: true) rather than hanging — retry shortly, raise deadline_s, or use source=openalex.

Returns: {seeds, n_nodes, n_edges, edges:[[citer_id, cited_id]], nodes:[{id, title, year, date, cited_by, in_degree, concept, first_author, doi, url, is_seed, seed_ref_freq, seed_cite_freq}]} (sorted by in_degree as a default view only; seed_ref_freq/seed_cite_freq on non-seed nodes). _meta carries seed_titles + seed_note (auto-seed drift check), degraded, deadline_hit, partial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
freshNo
queryNo
seedsNo
sourceNoopenalex
n_seedsNo
max_nodesNo
deadline_sNo
citers_per_seedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that there is no frontier flag, no polarity judgment, no S2 polarity field, that contexts may be empty, that results can be partial on deadline_hit, and that OpenAlex may contain poisoned titles — all beyond what structured annotations would supply.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded and well organized into scannable bullets, with the core purpose stated first. Some repetition exists around the no-judgment/cartographer framing, and a few tuning parameters could be explained in less prose, but most sentences carry real operational guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description enumerates the full return shape, explains edge cases (degraded, partial, deadline_hit), names source tradeoffs, flags data hygiene issues, and points to sibling tools for related needs. There is very little an agent would need to call this correctly that is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 undocumented parameters. It adds strong meaning for query, seeds, source, and deadline_s, but leaves fresh, n_seeds, max_nodes, and citers_per_seed unexplained, so the agent must infer their purpose from defaults and names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: Map a research field's shape, and immediately defines the deliverable as the field's citation neighborhood. It also distinguishes this from judgment-heavy tools by calling itself a thin graph primitive with NO judgment, and it names a sibling alternative (omniseek_coauthors) for co-authorship.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states WHEN to use the tool (need citation neighborhood, foundational vs frontier), when to prefer seeds over query, and when to choose source='s2' over openalex. It even tells the agent to fetch a human-curated survey instead for young/hot fields, which is a clear alternative-routing instruction.

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