mcp-sparkit
OfficialRelated Servers
Alternatives to mcp-sparkit
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to run reproducible, high-recall literature search across seven source families with RRF fusion, fetch open-access full texts (falling back to abstracts), expand citations, export BibTeX/RIS, and audit reference coverage — all without any LLM API key, leaving query planning and writing to the agent. Multiple agent clients share one accumulating literature pool and background search jobs that keep running after sessions close.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceTurn any AI agent into an academic researcher that can search, read, cite, and write full literature reviews autonomously.14MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables scientific literature research through multi-agent search, analysis, and semantic memory, exposing 9 MCP tools for querying, storing, and retrieving research findings.1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search and retrieve academic papers from arXiv and PubMed with citation-grade extraction, providing clean citations and summaries.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search across major research-paper indexes and retrieve metadata, full text, and PDFs through an unpaywalled fallback chain, with biomedical sciences prioritized.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables LLM agents to search academic literature across multiple sources (IEEE, arXiv, ACM, Semantic Scholar, CORE, Scite, Consensus) and index/search local PDFs.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'research' submits a scientific question and returns either a report or a job ID, while 'get_job_status' retrieves the status or result of a previously submitted job. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tool names use snake_case, but 'research' is a single-word noun while 'get_job_status' follows a verb_noun pattern. This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
With only two tools, the server covers the essential workflow of submitting a research job and checking its status. While minimal, the count is appropriate for the narrow scope of a scientific research agent.
The tool set covers the primary use case (submit and retrieve results), but lacks features like job listing, cancellation, or retry. For a simple agent this may suffice, but there are notable gaps in lifecycle management.