Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

research_read_paper

Read a research paper. Return licensed Europe PMC body prose, question-ranked passages, byte locators, license and content provenance. Restricted or unavailable bodies return metadata-only availability; arXiv does not fetch PDFs.

Instructions

Read a research paper. Return licensed Europe PMC body prose, question-ranked passages, byte locators, license and content provenance. Restricted or unavailable bodies return metadata-only availability; arXiv does not fetch PDFs. Full text costs 5 credits, metadata-only reads 1.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesPaper read request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.12

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: Europe PMC licensing scope, restricted/unavailable bodies falling back to metadata-only, arXiv not fetching PDFs, and credit costs. It does not disclose auth requirements or any rate limits beyond price, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then returns, then edge cases, then cost. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain both return shape and behavior; it covers return contents, fallback behavior, and pricing. It does not explain how the nested request object should be formed or what 'limit' controls, a minor gap for a nested-schema tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a nested request object carrying paper_id/question/limit, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds semantic framing ('question-ranked passages') that hints at the role of the question parameter, slightly beyond the schema.

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 + resource ('Read a research paper') and details what it returns, which distinguishes it from the search/inspect siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The credit-cost note (5 for full text vs 1 for metadata-only) implies a trade-off an agent should weigh, but there is no explicit 'use search_papers to find IDs first' or 'use inspect_paper for metadata' guidance. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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