Skip to main content
Glama
YGao2005

Scholar Feed MCP Server

get_foundational_lineage

Identify niche-specific foundational papers for any arXiv paper by analyzing its citation neighborhood, revealing canonical anchors that semantic search misses.

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).
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the citation graph mechanism, three tiers, evidence per paper, embedding neighbourhood, and status of no Pro key or LLM calls needed. Transparent about all key behaviors.

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 fairly long but every sentence is informative. It is front-loaded with purpose, then structures the tiers, then usage. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (three tiers with cited_by_in_niche evidence). Parameters are fully described, usage is clear, and relationship to sibling is stated. No gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions, but the tool description adds significant context: explains niche building for anchor_paper_id, typical niche sizes for scope, effect of generality_ceiling, and range for limit. Value added beyond schema merits a 4.

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 it returns 'the FOUNDATIONAL WORK FOR A PAPER'S NICHE via the citation graph', explains the three tiers, and distinguishes from global landmarks. It also mentions complementing a sibling tool, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this to trace prior art / lineage for a paper, or to find the canonical methods a niche is built on.' and notes it 'Complements get_field_orientation', providing clear guidance on when and with what alternatives.

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