Skip to main content
Glama
algonacci

mcp-crossref

by algonacci

analyze_crossref_topic

Analyze a research topic's publication trends, top venues, publishers, funders, and most cited works by scanning Crossref for titles containing the exact phrase.

Instructions

Describe a research topic: publications per year, top venues, publishers and funders, and the
most cited works, counting only titles that contain the exact phrase.

When to use:
    - Trend questions: "is X growing?", "when did X take off?", thesis/proposal background.
    - "Where is X published?", "who funds X?" (venue and funder landscape).

How it works:
    Crossref has no phrase search, so a plain query for "retrieval augmented generation" matches
    about a million works. This tool scans the top `scan` relevance-ranked hits and keeps only
    works whose title contains the exact phrase, then aggregates them. It is a sample of the most
    relevant works, not a complete count; older years may be under-represented.

Args:
    phrase: The topic phrase, e.g. "retrieval augmented generation" (hyphens/case ignored).
    scan: Relevance hits to scan, 100-2000 (default 500). Larger = slower but more complete.
    from_year: Optional earliest publication year.
    until_year: Optional latest publication year.
    work_type: Optional Crossref type, e.g. "journal-article".

Returns:
    {"phrase", "fuzzy_total" (all keyword matches, for context), "scanned", "matched",
     "per_year": {year: count}, "top_venues", "top_publishers", "top_funders": [[name, count]],
     "most_cited": [compact work]}

Counts describe metadata only; they do not rank venue or funder quality.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanNo
phraseYes
from_yearNo
work_typeNo
until_yearNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the phrase-matching workaround, warns the result is a sample of top relevance hits rather than a complete count, notes older years may be under-represented, states larger scan is slower but more complete, and clarifies counts describe metadata only, not quality. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before relying on the numbers.

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 sectioned (purpose, when to use, how it works, args, returns) and front-loaded so the highest-value information comes first. It is somewhat long and the Args/Returns blocks partially restate the schema/output structure, but nearly every line carries usable information.

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?

For a 5-parameter aggregation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, mechanism, limitations, all parameters, and a return-shape sketch (which is welcome even alongside the output schema). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents every parameter: phrase (case/hyphen-insensitive), scan (100-2000, default 500, with a speed/completeness tradeoff), from_year/until_year as bounds, and work_type as a Crossref type with an example value. This adds semantics the bare schema lacks.

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 first line states a specific action and its outputs (per-year counts, top venues/publishers/funders, most-cited works) gated on exact-phrase title matching. The 'How it works' note that Crossref lacks phrase search and that this scans top relevance hits distinguishes it from a plain search sibling. An agent can separate it from search_crossref or find_related_works without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (trend questions, thesis background, venue/funder landscape) with example phrasings. What it lacks is a negative statement routing the agent to an alternative (e.g., 'for a plain keyword search use search_crossref'), so context is clear but no exclusions are stated.

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