Skip to main content
Glama
SAKURAfan1023

Scholar Library

Related Servers

Alternatives to Scholar Library

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables users to build and query a project-local literature database by ingesting papers from Semantic Scholar, PubMed, arXiv, and OpenAlex, caching open-access PDFs, extracting full text, ranking results, and exposing MCP tools for search, seeds, feedback, and pipeline status over stdio.
      16
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables a local academic research workflow via any MCP client: literature search across Scopus and OpenAlex, citation chains, per-project research memory, paper download, and PDF-to-Markdown conversion through MinerU.
      GPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients such as Claude Code and Codex to drive a local literature-retrieval workflow: import DOIs or references, find and download legal open-access full texts first, submit requests through the user's own personal account when needed, and monitor or verify the resulting PDFs.
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables provenance-first scholarly retrieval, paper ingestion, and reproducible research workflows by searching academic and developer sources, extracting source-located facts and claims, and preserving evidence and provider uncertainty for MCP clients.
      37
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP server that analyzes research papers, maps citation graphs, and surfaces insights with verbatim-verified contradictions, all while keeping data private on your machine.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 38 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are mostly well separated by resource and action (e.g., search_literature vs search_library, parse_local_pdf vs parse_document). Some adjacent read/extract/parse-job tools (read_extraction vs read_parse_result, get_parse_job vs retry_parse vs resume_parse_observation) require careful reading, but descriptions clarify boundaries.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use snake_case and nearly all follow a verb_noun or action_object pattern. workspace_status is a minor noun-only exception, but the overall naming convention is predictable and readable.

    Tool Count2/5

    38 tools is above the typical 3-15 band and exceeds the 25+ heavy threshold. The parsing, extraction, and job-management pipeline contains many granular tools that could be consolidated for easier agent selection.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers project setup, import, parsing, search, evidence building, export, deletion, backup/restore, and more. Minor lifecycle gaps exist (e.g., no explicit project-level delete/list beyond workspace_status), but major research workflows are well covered.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues