scopus-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scopus_get_references

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a page of a paper's bibliography via Elsevier REF view, with full-bibliography fallback when REF metadata is missing; follow next_start and report unavailable references.

Instructions

Retrieve one page of a paper's bibliography using Elsevier REF view, with FULL bibliography fallback when REF metadata is absent. Requires appropriate entitlement. Missing references are reported as unavailable, never assumed to mean no references. Follow next_start when present.

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "scopus_get_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`count`	No
`start`	No
`identifier`	Yes
`identifier_type`	No	scopus_id

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`showing`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`next_start`	Yes
`references`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`start_index`	Yes
`retrieved_at`	Yes
`identifier_type`	Yes
`total_references`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses a REF-to-FULL fallback path, an entitlement prerequisite, and an important error semantic ('missing references are reported as unavailable, never assumed to mean no references'). It stops short of describing rate limits or the shape of the returned page, but the added context is substantial.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, each carrying distinct information (mechanism, fallback, prerequisite, error semantics, pagination). Some Elsevier-specific jargon ('REF view', 'FULL bibliography') is unexplained but compact.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers the operation, fallback behavior, access prerequisite, and pagination cue. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for identifier and identifier_type, which matters for a tool that accepts four identifier forms.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'One page' loosely implies count/start and 'next_start' points at output pagination, but identifier, identifier_type (scopus_id/doi/eid/pubmed_id), and the 1-100 count bounds are never explained.

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 and resource ('Retrieve one page of a paper's bibliography') plus the underlying mechanism (Elsevier REF view) and scope (one page). It is clearly distinguishable from scopus_get_citing_documents or scopus_get_abstract by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('bibliography') and constrained by 'Requires appropriate entitlement', which hints the agent should verify access (e.g. via scopus_check_access) first. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for citation lookups, leaving routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server