Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Scholar MCP

Scholar MCP

by Liyux3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Inspect a paper and its citation neighborhood

paper_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a paper by identifier to retrieve its abstract, authors, citations, and references, ordered by citation count for tracing research influence.

Instructions

Look up a paper and trace what it builds on or what followed it.

Detail includes the complete available abstract and author list. Citations are papers that cite it; references are papers it cites. Each relation list is ordered by citation count and limited separately.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax citations/references to return (default 20)
includeNoComma-separated: detail, citations, references, data. data explicitly looks up scientific database associations.detail
paper_idYesPaper identifier (S2 ID, DOI, ArXiv:ID, OpenAlex W-ID, etc.)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / include / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated: \"detail\", \"citations\", \"references\" (default: \"detail\")"New value: +"Comma-separated: detail, citations, references, data.\ndata explicitly looks up scientific database associations."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.8.3
    • addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +true
    • removedOutput schema / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
    • removedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
      Removed value: -true
  3. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the description is free to add operational detail — and it does: detail returns the complete abstract and author list, and each relation list is ordered by citation count and limited separately. The per-list limiting rule is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs. It stops short of noting error cases or truncation beyond the limit.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, detail payload, citations-vs-references definitions, then ordering and limit semantics. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 and rich annotations already supplied, the description covers the remaining ambiguity: relationship direction, ordering, per-list limits, and detail contents. Minor omissions — what happens with an unresolvable ID, and whether include sections are additive — keep it from a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more: "Citations are papers that cite it; references are papers it cites" disambiguates two easily confused include values, and "limited separately" clarifies that limit applies per relation list rather than as a total cap. The data option is left to 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?

"Look up a paper and trace what it builds on or what followed it" gives a specific verb (look up, trace) plus resource (paper, its citations/references). The second and third sentences disambiguate citations from references, which no sibling tool does. It does not explicitly name search_papers as the way to resolve a paper ID, so it falls short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: the tool is for retrieving a known paper's neighborhood, and the include list hints at optional sections. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_papers (find an ID first) or read_paper (full text), and no stated behavior for unknown IDs. Adequate but with clear routing gaps.

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