Skip to main content
Glama
algonacci

mcp-crossref

by algonacci

cite_dois

Format citations for one or more DOIs in any citation style or export format, including APA, IEEE, BibTeX, and RIS, to build bibliographies and reference lists.

Instructions

Format citations for one or more DOIs in any citation style or export format.

Uses DOI content negotiation, so it works for Crossref AND DataCite DOIs (arXiv, Zenodo, ...).

When to use:
    - Building a bibliography / reference list for a thesis or paper.
    - Exporting references to Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote (bibtex / ris).

Args:
    dois: List of DOIs (max 50), e.g. ["10.1038/nature14539", "10.1145/3065386"].
    style: Citation style or export format:
        - "apa" (default), "ieee", "vancouver", "chicago", "mla", "harvard", "nature"
        - any other CSL style id from https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles,
          e.g. "american-medical-association"
        - "bibtex", "ris" or "csl-json" for reference-manager exports

Returns:
    {"style": str, "citations": [{"doi": str, "citation": str}], "failed": [{"doi", "error"}]}

Example:
    cite_dois(["10.1038/nature14539"], style="ieee")
    -> "Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, ..."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doisYes
styleNoapa

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the DOI content-negotiation mechanism, that it covers both Crossref and DataCite DOIs (arXiv, Zenodo), the max-50 input limit, and a partial-failure result shape. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether failures are retried, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly sectioned into When to use / Args / Returns / Example. Every section is useful, though the Returns block partially restates the output schema that already exists, adding a small amount of redundancy.

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 two-parameter formatting tool with an output schema, the description covers coverage (Crossref + DataCite), the input cap, the failure path, accepted style values, and a worked example. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 fully, and it does: 'dois' gets an example list and a max-50 constraint, and 'style' gets a default, an explicit enumeration of common styles, the CSL-style-id escape hatch with a URL, and three export formats.

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?

States a specific verb (format/cite) and resource (DOIs/citations) plus scope: any citation style or export format. It is clearly distinct from siblings like resolve_dois (which resolves metadata) and search_crossref (which finds works).

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?

Includes an explicit 'When to use' list with concrete scenarios (building a bibliography, exporting to Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote). It does not, however, name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving the routing to resolve_dois or search_crossref to inference.

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