Skip to main content
Glama
Biogod2020

cnki-search

by Biogod2020
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are distinctly separated: 'search' performs queries across metadata fields, while 'get_record' fetches details from a specific URL returned by search. There is no functional overlap between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a clear lowercase_with_underscores convention and use verb-first naming ('search', 'get_record'). The pattern is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server is minimal. The scope (searching and retrieving CNKI records) is narrow enough to justify this count, but it borders on being too thin for a productive search API.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the essential metadata search and record retrieval workflows. It lacks features like citation export or full-text download, but for its stated purpose of metadata access, the coverage is adequate with only minor gaps.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain parameter constraints (e.g., field enums, sort options) and a conditional rule about query emptiness, which is helpful. But it does not mention pagination size, error behavior for invalid combinations, or what happens when no filters are set. The output schema covers return values, but other behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args list with every line adding value. There is no redundant information, and the note about query emptiness is placed logically before the parameter list. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool.

    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?

    The description covers all parameters with semantics and provides a conditional note, which is solid for a search tool. An output schema exists, so return values are handled externally. However, it lacks explicit reference to sibling get_record for single-record lookups, and does not mention edge cases like page size limits or default field behavior beyond schema defaults. Minor gaps keep it from a perfect score.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The description provides meaningful explanations for all 8 parameters, going beyond the bare schema. It translates each enum value (theme, title, keyword, etc.), clarifies the meaning of 'page', and offers a practical tip ('Exact title works best with field=title'). This is exactly what parameter semantics should provide, and the schema alone offers no descriptions.

    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 clearly states it searches 知网空间 metadata with a specific verb ('Search') and resource, and the parameter list distinguishes it from get_record by focusing on multi-field querying rather than single-record retrieval. The purpose is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

    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?

    There is a useful note about 'query may be empty if author or advisor is set', giving conditional usage guidance, and the parameter explanations imply how to use search. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus get_record, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. This is a missed opportunity for clear guidance.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Fetch metadata') and what it does not do ('Not a PDF download'), but lacks detail on return format, error behavior, or authentication. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is brief: a one-line purpose, a negative clarification, and one-line parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

    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?

    This is a simple one-parameter get tool. An output schema exists (not shown), so return value explanation is not required. The description covers the parameter's format and source, and the 'Not a PDF' note prevents a common misuse. It is complete enough for a basic fetch operation.

    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?

    The schema only provides a 'url' string with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying 'A CNKI Space or CDMD detail URL returned by search', clarifying the required format and provenance. With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is valuable.

    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 states 'Fetch metadata from a 知网 / CDMD / cnki.com.cn record page' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from PDF download and ties the input URL to a search result, clearly separating it from the sibling 'search' tool.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    It explicitly mentions the URL must be 'returned by search', implying a workflow where search is used first. It also warns 'Not a PDF download', which is an exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use, so slightly shy of full guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

cnki-search MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cnki-search MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

cnki-search MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Biogod2020/cnki-search'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server