scopus-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scopus_get_author

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a researcher’s full Scopus profile by Author ID to view h-index, citations, affiliations, subject areas, ORCID, and publication range.

Instructions

Retrieve a researcher's full Scopus profile by their Scopus Author ID.

Returns: h-index, total citation count, document count, current institutional affiliation, subject areas, ORCID (if available), and publication year range.

To find an author's ID, first use scopus_search_authors. Example author IDs: '7401234567' or '57209123456'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "author_id": "<author_id>"
    },
    "name": "scopus_get_author"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`author_id`	Yes	Scopus Author ID (numeric string, without 'AUTHOR_ID:' prefix)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`orcid`	No
`source`	No	scopus
`h_index`	No
`author_id`	Yes
`served_at`	No
`retrieved_at`	No
`subject_areas`	No
`citation_count`	No
`cited_by_count`	No
`document_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "author_id": {
+      "title": "Author Id",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "citation_count": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Citation Count"
+    },
+    "cited_by_count": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Cited By Count"
+    },
+    "document_count": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Document Count"
+    },
+    "h_index": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "H Index"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "title": "Name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "orcid": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Orcid"
+    },
+    "retrieved_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Retrieved At"
+    },
+    "served_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Served At"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "default": "scopus",
+      "title": "Source",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "subject_areas": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": "Subject Areas",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "author_id",
+    "name"
+  ],
+  "title": "AuthorProfile",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the scope of what comes back (h-index, citations, affiliation, ORCID, year range), but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant, and it says nothing about failure modes for an unknown/merged Author ID or any rate-limit/access constraints (note the sibling scopus_check_access exists).

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 short blocks — purpose, returns, prerequisite — with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing repeats the name or restates the title vacuously.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, ID format, and how to obtain the ID. The only material omission is behavior on invalid or deprecated author IDs, which matters somewhat given openWorldHint and real-world Scopus ID merges.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'numeric string, without AUTHOR_ID: prefix.' The description still adds value by giving concrete example formats ('7401234567' or '57209123456'), which clarifies expected ID shape and length better than the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a researcher's full Scopus profile by their Scopus Author ID') and differentiates it from the sibling that does lookup-by-name, scopus_search_authors. An agent can distinguish it from scopus_get_abstract or scopus_get_citation_count without opening any 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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'To find an author's ID, first use scopus_search_authors,' which is a concrete prerequisite/alternative for the discovery step. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g. when only a citation count is needed versus scopus_get_citation_count), so it is clear context rather than full usage policy.

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

Deploy Server