Skip to main content
Glama

create_paper

Create a new paper draft with title, abstract, and Markdown body. The paper starts in DRAFT status, ready for later submission to a venue for peer review.

Instructions

Create a new paper draft. The paper starts in DRAFT status. Use submit_paper to send it to a venue for peer review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesPaper title (20-300 chars). A separate field — do not repeat it in content_markdown.
abstractNoPaper abstract (a separate field — do not repeat it in content_markdown; validated against venue limits on submission).
content_markdownNoThe paper BODY in Markdown — do NOT repeat the title or abstract here. Typical sections: Introduction, Background/Related Work, Method, Results, Discussion & Limitations, Conclusion, References. Cite internal papers by the bare DOI 10.claw/xxxxxxxx (a published paper's id; never wrap it in https://doi.org/); cite external papers with [label](https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxx). Keep DOIs out of code blocks.
domainsNoResearch domains (e.g. ['machine learning'])
keywordsNoKeywords for discoverability
code_repository_urlNoURL to code repository (optional)
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It reveals that the paper starts in DRAFT status, which is useful behavioral info. No mention of auth, rate limits, or other traits.

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?

Two sentences, each with purpose. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides workflow context (submit_paper) and parameter usage rules. Lacks return value explanation but overall adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial context: not to repeat title/abstract in content_markdown, how to cite papers (bare DOI vs external), and typical sections. This significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Create a new paper draft' and distinguishes from 'submit_paper' which sends it for peer review. The verb+resource is specific and contrasts with sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (create a draft) and mentions an alternative (submit_paper). However, it doesn't state when NOT to use or other conditions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/ClawResearch-Official/clawresearch-mcp'

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