MCP Refchecker
Accepts arXiv IDs as input for citation verification and provides warnings about version differences.
Verifies academic citations against Semantic Scholar's database, matching metadata like title, authors, year, and venue.
mcp-refchecker
An MCP server that lets Claude verify academic citations in real time against Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, and Crossref — catching hallucinated or incorrect references before they end up in your work.
Built on top of academic-refchecker (MIT).
Tool
verify_citation — verifies that a cited paper exists and that its metadata (title, authors, year, venue) matches what was cited.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | yes | Title of the cited paper |
| string[] | no | List of author names |
| integer | no | Publication year |
| string | no | DOI (e.g. |
| string | no | arXiv ID (e.g. |
| string | no | Direct URL to the paper |
Returns JSON:
{
"verified": true,
"url": "https://...",
"matched_paper": {
"title": "...",
"authors": [...],
"year": 2023,
"venue": "..."
},
"possible_match": null,
"errors": null,
"warnings": null,
"info": null
}Result fields
verified—trueif the paper was found and all provided metadata (year, authors, venue) matches.falseif there is a real metadata conflict or the paper could not be found.matched_paper— the authoritative metadata from the verification source.possible_match— a Crossref fallback match when the exact title was not found but a close variant was (see "Fuzzy fallback" below).errors— hard errors that block verification (wrong year, wrong authors, paper not found).warnings— soft warnings that don't block verification (arXiv v1 vs v2 differences, arXiv preprint vs published venue, incomplete input metadata).info— informational suggestions (e.g., "reference could include arXiv URL").
What counts as an error vs a warning
academic-refchecker returns a flat list of issues with some inconsistency (year mismatches get marked as warnings while author mismatches get marked as errors). This wrapper normalises the output:
Promoted to hard errors: plain
year/author/venuemismatches where the cited metadata actually differs from reality. These blockverified.Demoted to warnings: "missing field" errors when the paper was found but the user didn't provide that field in the first place. Missing input metadata is not evidence of a hallucinated citation.
Kept as warnings: arXiv version differences (v1 vs v2), preprint-vs-published venue notes.
Fuzzy fallback and its limitations
When academic-refchecker reports that a paper could not be verified, this wrapper makes a secondary query to Crossref using fuzzy title matching and fuzzywuzzy.ratio. If a candidate with ≥ 85% similarity is found, it's returned as possible_match with a warning.
What the fuzzy fallback catches:
Stylistic title variations (case differences, punctuation, word order)
Minor rewording
Titles where refchecker's strict comparison rejected an otherwise valid match
What the fuzzy fallback does NOT catch:
Real typos in distinctive title words (e.g., "Atention Is All You Need")
Heavily mangled titles
This is a fundamental limitation of free academic search APIs. Crossref, OpenAlex, and Semantic Scholar all do keyword/token-based search — as soon as a distinctive word is misspelled, it simply isn't in the search index, and the real paper won't appear in results regardless of how you post-process them. Catching real typos would require semantic embeddings from a paid API (OpenAI, Voyage, etc.) or a full-text fuzzy search engine, neither of which is exposed by free scholarly data sources.
If you suspect a typo but verify_citation returns unverified, the best workaround is to rewrite the title in the most canonical form you can and try again.
Related MCP server: Lyra's Expanded Research MCP
Installation & configuration
Recommended: uvx (no install step)
If you have uv installed, no separate installation is needed. Add directly to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"refchecker": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcp-refchecker"]
}
}
}uvx downloads and runs the package in an isolated environment automatically. Restart Claude Desktop after saving the config.
Alternative: pip
pip install mcp-refcheckerThen add to claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"refchecker": {
"command": "mcp-refchecker"
}
}
}From source
git clone https://github.com/JonasBaath/mcp-refchecker
cd mcp-refchecker
pip install .Optional environment variables
SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY— apply for one here for higher rate limits on refchecker's primary verification path.CROSSREF_MAILTO— your contact email, used to opt into Crossref's polite pool for more reliable fuzzy fallback access.MCP_REFCHECKER_DEBUG— set to any non-empty value to print debug logging from the fuzzy fallback path to stderr.
Example with all optional settings (uvx):
{
"mcpServers": {
"refchecker": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcp-refchecker"],
"env": {
"SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY": "your-key-here",
"CROSSREF_MAILTO": "you@example.com"
}
}
}
}License
MIT — © Jonas Bååth. Built on academic-refchecker (MIT).
Available Tools
1 toolverify_citationA
Verify that an academic citation is accurate by checking it against Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, and CrossRef. Returns whether the paper exists and flags mismatches in title, authors, year, or venue.
Args: title: Title of the cited paper (required). authors: List of author names. year: Publication year. doi: DOI of the paper (e.g. 10.1145/12345). arxiv_id: arXiv ID (e.g. 2301.00001). url: Direct URL to the paper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| authors | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| doi | No | ||
| arxiv_id | No | ||
| url | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains what the tool checks (title, authors, year, venue) and the sources used, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, this dimension carries full weight; the description does not cover all potential behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, but given the straightforward nature of a citation verification tool, the disclosure is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear first paragraph stating the tool's purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers the essential information. It explains the verification process and parameter meanings, but lacks details on output structure. However, since an output schema exists, this omission is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for effective usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides brief semantic information for each parameter, defining what they represent (e.g., 'DOI of the paper', 'arXiv ID'). However, the input schema's title fields already convey most of this information (e.g., 'Doi', 'Arxiv Id'), and the description does not add significant new meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates minimally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying academic citations by checking against three specific databases (Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, CrossRef). It precisely describes the verification outputs: existence check and mismatch flags for title, authors, year, or venue. This is specific and informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists parameters with their types and example formats, providing guidance on how to use the tool. However, it does not indicate when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which would be beneficial since there are no sibling tools. The clarity of the parameter descriptions partly compensates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity between tools. The single tool has a clear, singular purpose.
With only one tool, consistency with other tools is not applicable. The name itself (verify_citation) follows a reasonable verb_noun pattern, but no pattern across tools can be evaluated.
The server provides only one tool for the domain of citation verification. While verifying a citation is a focused task, real-world usage often requires additional operations like batch verification, retrieving paper details, or checking multiple citations at once, making the single tool feel too limited.
The tool covers a single operation (verifying a citation) but lacks other related operations such as searching for papers, listing citations for a paper, or bulk verification. For a comprehensive citation checking service, the coverage is incomplete.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Academic research MCP server for paper search, citation checks, graphs, and deep research.
MCP server for Altmetric APIs - track research attention across news, policy, social media, and more
Crossref MCP — wraps the Crossref REST API (academic papers, free, no auth)
Auditable MCP server for PubMed, Europe PMC, ClinicalTrials.gov, and bioRxiv/medRxiv queries
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceComprehensive MCP server for academic research workflows, enabling paper searching across multiple sources, manuscript processing with citation placeholders, search caching, and citation export.11MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA unified MCP server providing programmatic access to three major academic research APIs: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, and PubMed.2
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceUnified MCP server for scientific literature search and extraction, integrating databases like Scopus, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, and Unpaywall to enable AI agents to discover papers, track citations, and analyze content.27MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that verifies the existence, metadata accuracy, and claim support of academic citations by querying sources like OpenAlex, Crossref, and arXiv, enabling AI agents to fact-check references.1MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/JonasBaath/mcp-refchecker'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server