Retrieve papers that cite a given paper using a bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID, with options for result count and response format.
Get papers that cite a given paper (forward citations). Accepts a bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | No | Number of citations to return | |
| bibcode | Yes | Paper identifier: bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID (scix:...) | |
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / bibcode / descriptionPrevious value: -"SciX bibcode identifier"New value: +"Paper identifier: bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID (scix:...)"Input schema / properties / bibcode / maxLengthAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / bibcode / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / rows / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of citations to return (1-100, default 20)"New value: +"Number of citations to return"Input schema / properties / rows / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / rows / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / rows / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no ordering, pagination, or result-count behavior, and no note on what happens with an unresolvable identifier. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and the accepted identifier forms are both front-loaded. Nothing in it wastes the agent's reading budget.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, yet the description never characterizes the return (list of papers, ordering, fields), though it does cover the identifier input forms required to call it. For a simple read-only list tool this is nearly complete, with only return-shape details missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% and the schema already documents the identifier formats verbatim ('bibcode, DOI, arXiv ID, or SciX ID'), so the description's identifier sentence is largely a restatement. 'rows' and 'response_format' semantics come from the schema, not the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (papers that cite a given paper) and disambiguates direction with '(forward citations)', which separates it from the references-style sibling. It does not, however, name the sibling tool (e.g. get_references) the way the highest-scoring definitions do.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The '(forward citations)' qualifier implies when this tool applies versus a backward-citation tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of get_references or get_paper as alternatives, and no preconditions. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.