Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

research_inspect_paper

Retrieve paper metadata from an arXiv, PMID, PMCID, DOI, or Europe PMC identifier. Get titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and verified identifier aliases without fetching full text.

Instructions

Inspect paper metadata. Return paper records including titles, abstracts when available, authors, publication dates and verified identifier aliases. Europe PMC resolution is limited to MED-backed PMID, PMCID and DOI records; no full-text body is fetched.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYesarXiv identifier, PMID, PMCID, DOI, Europe PMC primary ID or canonical paper ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.12

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose return contents (titles, abstracts when available, authors, dates, aliases), resolution limits (MED-backed PMID/PMCID/DOI only), and the absence of full text. It does not cover error behavior or auth/rate-limit considerations, but for a read-only metadata inspection those are minor.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action and return contents, then append the critical scope constraint. No sentence is redundant or wasteful.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape and the Europe PMC resolution boundary. It could say more about what happens with unsupported identifiers or partial matches, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the accepted identifier formats (arXiv, PMID, PMCID, DOI, Europe PMC ID, canonical ID). The description adds the concept of 'verified identifier aliases' but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('paper metadata'), then enumerates the returned fields. The clause 'no full-text body is fetched' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling research_read_paper. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

The description makes clear this is for metadata only, implicitly routing full-text needs to research_read_paper, and it notes the Europe PMC resolution limit as a usage constraint. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state when-not-to-use beyond the full-text caveat, so it falls short of a 5.

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