Skip to main content
Glama
Ravicha2

io.github.Ravicha2/lit-review-council

by Ravicha2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to io.github.Ravicha2/lit-review-council

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • MCP-Deep-Researcher

      sid12super
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A multi-agent research system that decomposes complex queries into targeted sub-questions, searches the web in parallel, scores source credibility, and synthesizes findings into structured markdown reports.
      1
      1
      MIT

    • Agentic-RAG

      Sun1206
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP-based multi-agent retrieval-augmented generation system that enables question answering over academic papers with hybrid search, knowledge graph multi-hop reasoning, and source-cited answers.
      -

    • Academic Research & Sci-Hub

      0jsDanny
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to conduct literature reviews by screening multiple academic databases, performing backward and forward citation snowballing, and resolving or downloading full-text PDFs through subscription and open-access sources.
      MIT
    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

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    There is only one tool, so there is no chance of selecting between overlapping tools. The single tool's purpose is also clearly conveyed by its name and description.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern: conduct_literature_review. With only one tool in the set, there are no naming inconsistencies to evaluate.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool is on the thin side, but it functions as a high-level workflow orchestrator for the entire literature review process. The count feels borderline rather than excessive or trivially mismatched.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool covers the core workflow from research question and topics to a generated output bundle, so there is no dead end. Minor gaps exist around auxiliary capabilities like validating topics in advance or checking the status of past reviews, but these are workable for a one-shot orchestration tool.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources