Skip to main content
Glama
YGao2005

Scholar Feed MCP Server

by YGao2005

search_papers

Search over 560,000 CS/AI/ML research papers by keyword to find relevant studies with summaries, novelty scores, and structured data for literature reviews and analysis.

Instructions

Search Scholar Feed's 560k+ CS/AI/ML paper corpus by keyword. Returns papers with LLM-generated summaries, novelty scores, and structured extraction data (method, task, contribution type). Supports filtering by category, novelty, recency, method, task, dataset, contribution type, and whether papers have benchmark results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query keywords
categoryNoFilter by arXiv category e.g. 'cs.AI', 'cs.LG'
novelty_minNoMinimum novelty score (0-1). Use 0.5+ for novel papers.
daysNoLimit to papers published within N days
method_categoryNoFilter by method category e.g. 'reinforcement learning', 'transformer'
taskNoFilter by task e.g. 'image classification', 'question answering' (partial match)
datasetNoFilter to papers that evaluate on a specific dataset e.g. 'MMLU', 'ImageNet'
contribution_typeNoFilter by paper's contribution type
task_categoryNoFilter by broad research area
has_resultsNoIf true, only return papers with quantitative benchmark results in paper_results
modeNoSearch mode: 'keyword' (default, full-text match) or 'semantic' (embedding similarity — finds conceptually related papers even without exact keyword matches, slower)
cursorNoCursor from previous response's next_cursor for keyset pagination
pageNoPage number
limitNoResults per page (max 50)
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to return (e.g. 'arxiv_id,title,llm_summary,llm_novelty_score'). Default: all fields.
exclude_idsNoarXiv IDs to exclude from results (for deduplication across chained calls)
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the corpus size (560k+ papers), what's returned (summaries, novelty scores, structured data), filtering capabilities, and search modes (keyword vs. semantic with performance implications). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second details filtering capabilities and return data. Every element adds value with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a complex search tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and returns. It covers the corpus scope, return data types, and filtering capabilities. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the response structure or format, leaving some ambiguity about the exact return values.

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 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning the corpus size and the types of data returned, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 searches a specific corpus (Scholar Feed's 560k+ CS/AI/ML papers) by keyword and returns papers with specific metadata (LLM-generated summaries, novelty scores, structured extraction data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_benchmarks' or 'search_by_method' by emphasizing comprehensive search across the full corpus with rich metadata.

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?

The description implies usage for searching papers with rich metadata, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_by_method' or 'find_similar'. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't provide guidance on when to choose this tool over other search-related siblings.

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