Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
research-hub

research-hub

by WenyuChiou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

build_citation

Produce a formatted inline citation for a paper given its DOI or slug, with configurable citation style.

Instructions

Return an inline citation string for a paper.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "doi_or_slug": "<doi_or_slug>"
    },
    "name": "build_citation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doi_or_slugYes
styleNoapa

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like error handling (invalid DOI), rate limits, or side effects. The description is too sparse for an agent to understand implications.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the action but is too brief to be informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description should at least clarify parameter formats and purpose. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient context despite the output schema existing.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters. 'doi_or_slug' and 'style' are undefined; valid styles are not enumerated. The agent has no clue what values are acceptable.

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?

The description states the tool returns an inline citation string for a paper, making the action clear. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_citations' or 'export_citation'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an inline citation is needed vs. a full reference list. No exclusions or context provided.

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