Skip to main content
Glama
YGao2005

Scholar Feed MCP Server

Get Foundational Lineage

get_foundational_lineage
Read-only

Identify niche-specific foundational papers for any arXiv paper. Ranks citations into niche roots, field-level, and discipline tiers with cited-by evidence.

Instructions

Returns the FOUNDATIONAL WORK FOR A PAPER'S NICHE via the citation graph — the relative question ('what is foundational for THIS paper's specific sub-field', often itself only modestly cited) rather than the obvious global landmarks. Anchors on the paper, takes its embedding neighbourhood as the niche, and ranks what the niche cites into three tiers: niche_roots (the niche-specific foundations, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on them — surfaces canonical anchors that semantic search misses), field_level (broader secondary foundations), and discipline (universal landmarks like Attention Is All You Need, collapsed out of the way). Each paper carries cited_by_in_niche evidence so the claim is grounded, not asserted. Use this to trace prior art / lineage for a paper, or to find the canonical methods a niche is built on. Complements get_field_orientation (which is topic-anchored and retrieval-only). No Pro key and no LLM calls required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anchor_paper_idYesarXiv ID of the paper to anchor on, e.g. '2504.04704' or '2504.04704v2'. The niche is built from this paper's embedding neighbourhood.
scopeNoNiche breadth: 'narrow' (~100 nearest papers, tightest sub-topic — surfaces the few-citation niche root), 'field' (~200, default), 'broad' (~400, wider area foundations).field
generality_ceilingNoWhen true (default), demote universally-cited landmark papers into the collapsed `discipline` tier so the niche-specific foundations lead. Set false to keep landmarks in the foundational tiers.
limitNoMax papers in each of the niche_roots and field_level tiers (5–40, default 15).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anchorNo
scopeNo
niche_sizeNo
tiersNoFoundational tiers: niche_roots → field_level → discipline.
niche_rootsNo
field_levelNo
disciplineNo
noteNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral traits: explains the three-tier structure (niche_roots, field_level, discipline) and states 'No Pro key and no LLM calls required'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is detailed and front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates on the tiers and usage. It is slightly wordy but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is fully adequate. It explains the output tiers, evidence, usage, and alternatives. No gaps remain for correct tool invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description provides context on how parameters like scope and generality_ceiling affect the niche analysis, but this is supplementary rather than essential for understanding parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states it returns foundational work for a paper's niche via the citation graph, with three tiers. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_field_orientation by noting that tool is topic-anchored and retrieval-only.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly advises using the tool to trace prior art/lineage for a paper or find canonical methods a niche is built on. It mentions the complementary relationship with get_field_orientation, providing context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/YGao2005/scholar-feed-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server