Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
research-hub

research-hub

by WenyuChiou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_citations

Retrieve forward citations for a paper using its DOI, arXiv ID, or Semantic Scholar ID. Identify research that references a specific publication.

Instructions

List papers that cite the given paper (forward citations).

Delegates to research_hub.citation_graph.CitationGraphClient (Semantic Scholar Graph API).

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "get_citations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesa DOI (``10.xxxx/...``), arXiv id (``2401.12345``), or Semantic Scholar paper id. Bare titles are NOT accepted.
limitNomax results (default 20).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes delegation to Semantic Scholar, omitting details like rate limits, authentication, or that it is a read-only operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a technical note. Every sentence is meaningful and concise.

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?

Given the simple list operation, the description covers the identifier format and delegation. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps in usage context remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds 'Bare titles are NOT accepted,' which provides extra clarity beyond the schema's parameter types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('List papers that cite the given paper') and specifies 'forward citations' to differentiate from backward citation tools like 'get_references'.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_references' or 'search_papers'. It only mentions delegation to an API.

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