Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
JonasBaath

MCP Refchecker

by JonasBaath
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

mcp-refchecker

PyPI

一个 MCP 服务器，允许 Claude 实时对照 Semantic Scholar、OpenAlex 和 Crossref 验证学术引用，在幻觉或错误的参考文献进入您的工作之前将其捕获。

基于 academic-refchecker (MIT) 构建。

工具

verify_citation — 验证被引用的论文是否存在，并确认其元数据（标题、作者、年份、出版场所）是否与引用内容匹配。

参数

类型

必需

描述

title

string

是

被引用论文的标题

authors

string[]

否

作者姓名列表

year

integer

否

出版年份

doi

string

否

DOI (例如 10.1145/12345)

arxiv_id

string

否

arXiv ID (例如 2301.00001)

url

string

否

论文的直接 URL

返回 JSON：

{
  "verified": true,
  "url": "https://...",
  "matched_paper": {
    "title": "...",
    "authors": [...],
    "year": 2023,
    "venue": "..."
  },
  "possible_match": null,
  "errors": null,
  "warnings": null,
  "info": null
}

结果字段

  • verified — 如果找到论文且所有提供的元数据（年份、作者、出版场所）均匹配，则为 true。如果存在实际的元数据冲突或无法找到论文，则为 false。

  • matched_paper — 来自验证源的权威元数据。

  • possible_match — 当未找到确切标题但找到相近变体时的 Crossref 后备匹配（参见下文“模糊后备”）。

  • errors — 阻止验证的硬错误（年份错误、作者错误、未找到论文）。

  • warnings — 不阻止验证的软警告（arXiv v1 与 v2 的差异、arXiv 预印本与已发表出版场所的区别、不完整的输入元数据）。

  • info — 信息性建议（例如，“参考文献可以包含 arXiv URL”）。

什么是错误，什么是警告

academic-refchecker 返回一个包含一些不一致问题的扁平列表（年份不匹配被标记为警告，而作者不匹配被标记为错误）。此包装器规范化了输出：

  • 提升为硬错误： 明显的 year/author/venue 不匹配，即引用的元数据与实际情况确实不同。这些会阻止 verified。

  • 降级为警告： 当找到论文但用户最初未提供该字段时的“缺少字段”错误。缺少输入元数据并不是幻觉引用的证据。

  • 保留为警告： arXiv 版本差异（v1 与 v2）、预印本与已发表出版场所的说明。

模糊后备及其局限性

当 academic-refchecker 报告无法验证论文时，此包装器会使用模糊标题匹配和 fuzzywuzzy.ratio 向 Crossref 发起二次查询。如果找到相似度 ≥ 85% 的候选者，它将作为 possible_match 并附带警告返回。

模糊后备能捕获的内容：

  • 风格化的标题变体（大小写差异、标点符号、词序）

  • 轻微的措辞调整

  • refchecker 的严格比较拒绝了原本有效的匹配的标题

模糊后备不能捕获的内容：

  • 特征性标题词中的实际拼写错误（例如，“Atention Is All You Need”）

  • 严重损坏的标题

这是免费学术搜索 API 的根本局限性。Crossref、OpenAlex 和 Semantic Scholar 都进行基于关键词/标记的搜索——一旦某个特征词拼写错误，它就不会出现在搜索索引中，无论您如何进行后处理，真实的论文都不会出现在结果中。捕获实际的拼写错误需要来自付费 API（OpenAI、Voyage 等）的语义嵌入或全文模糊搜索引擎，而免费的学术数据源均未提供这些功能。

如果您怀疑有拼写错误但 verify_citation 返回未验证，最好的解决方法是以您能想到的最规范的形式重写标题，然后重试。

Related MCP server: Lyra's Expanded Research MCP

安装与配置

推荐：uvx（无需安装步骤）

如果您安装了 uv，则无需单独安装。直接添加到您的 claude_desktop_config.json 中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "refchecker": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["mcp-refchecker"]
    }
  }
}

uvx 会自动在隔离环境中下载并运行该包。保存配置后重启 Claude Desktop。

替代方案：pip

pip install mcp-refchecker

然后添加到 claude_desktop_config.json：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "refchecker": {
      "command": "mcp-refchecker"
    }
  }
}

从源码安装

git clone https://github.com/JonasBaath/mcp-refchecker
cd mcp-refchecker
pip install .

可选环境变量

  • SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY — 在此处申请，以在 refchecker 的主要验证路径上获得更高的速率限制。

  • CROSSREF_MAILTO — 您的联系邮箱，用于加入 Crossref 的 polite pool，以获得更可靠的模糊后备访问权限。

  • MCP_REFCHECKER_DEBUG — 设置为任何非空值，以将来自模糊后备路径的调试日志打印到 stderr。

包含所有可选设置的示例 (uvx)：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "refchecker": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["mcp-refchecker"],
      "env": {
        "SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY": "your-key-here",
        "CROSSREF_MAILTO": "you@example.com"
      }
    }
  }
}

许可证

MIT — © Jonas Bååth。基于 academic-refchecker (MIT) 构建。

Available Tools

1 tool
verify_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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
authorsNo
yearNo
doiNo
arxiv_idNo
urlNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observedverify_citation
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity between tools. The single tool has a clear, singular purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • scholar-toolkit-mcp

    czwziy
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Comprehensive MCP server for academic research workflows, enabling paper searching across multiple sources, manuscript processing with citation placeholders, search caching, and citation export.
    11
    MIT

  • Scholar MCP Server

    mlintangmz2765
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Unified 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.
    27
    MIT

  • CiteGuard

    xiaweiyi713
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An 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.
    7
    68 PyPI
    1
    MIT