Skip to main content
Glama
Usama1002

Research Buddy MCP Server

by Usama1002
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Bulk Search Papers

bulk_search_papers

Search academic papers with boolean queries, filters, sorting, and pagination to support systematic literature reviews.

Instructions

Comprehensive paper search with boolean queries, sorting, and pagination through up to 10 million results. Use for systematic literature reviews.

  • query: Boolean query string. Supports: + (AND), | (OR), - (NOT), "exact phrase",

    • (wildcard), ~N (fuzzy match), parentheses for grouping. Example: '+"large language model" +hallucination -survey'

  • limit: Results per page (default 100, max 1000).

  • sort: Sort order. Options: 'citationCount:desc', 'citationCount:asc', 'publicationDate:desc', 'publicationDate:asc', 'paperId' (for stable pagination).

  • year: Year or range (e.g. '2023' or '2020-2024').

  • fields_of_study: Comma-separated (e.g. 'Computer Science').

  • publication_types: Comma-separated (e.g. 'JournalArticle,Conference').

  • open_access_pdf: If True, only papers with a public PDF.

  • min_citation_count: Minimum citations.

  • venue: Comma-separated venue names.

  • publication_date_or_year: Date range (e.g. '2023-01-01:2024-06-30').

  • token: Continuation token from previous result for pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNo
yearNo
limitNo
queryYes
tokenNo
venueNo
fields_of_studyNo
open_access_pdfNo
publication_typesNo
min_citation_countNo
publication_date_or_yearNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses pagination via continuation token, the limit default/max, and the boolean query grammar. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what the returned records contain, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact bulleted parameter reference. It is somewhat long but nearly every line carries unique parameter semantics, so little is wasted.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all inputs and pagination mechanics well. It does not describe the shape of returned results, which is a minor gap since no output schema exists to cover it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage across 11 parameters, the description fully compensates: it defines the query syntax with an example, enumerates the exact sort options, documents year/date formats, comma-separated lists, and explains the token as a continuation token. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Comprehensive paper search') plus scope capabilities (boolean, sorting, pagination up to 10M results). It is clear, but does not differentiate from the sibling search_papers, leaving the agent to guess which search tool fits.

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?

Offers one usage context ('Use for systematic literature reviews'), which implies when to reach for it, but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never mentions the sibling search_papers or other alternatives. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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