mcp-crossref

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_crossref_references

List a paper's cited references from its DOI to find the older works it builds on, supporting backward snowballing in literature reviews.

Instructions

List the references (bibliography) of a paper, i.e. the older works it cites.

When to use:
    - Backward snowballing in a literature review: find the foundational papers a key paper builds on.
    - Checking which sources a paper relies on.

Args:
    doi: DOI of the citing paper.
    resolve: Also fetch full metadata for the first N references that have a DOI (max 20),
        sorted by citation count, to spot the most influential ones. Default 0 (no extra calls).

Returns:
    {"doi", "title", "reference_count", "references": [{doi, title, author, year, journal,
    unstructured}], "resolved": [compact work]}

Notes:
    - Only references the publisher deposited are available; some publishers deposit none.
    - Crossref does not expose the reverse direction (papers that cite this one); use snowball_doi.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	Yes
`resolve`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses that resolve triggers extra calls capped at 20 and sorted by citation count, and that only publisher-deposited references exist (some publishers deposit none). It stops short of stating the operation is read-only or describing failure behavior for an invalid DOI.

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 core purpose and cleanly sectioned into When to use / Args / Returns / Notes. The Returns block partially duplicates the output schema, which is minor redundancy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, selection guidance, both parameter semantics, data-availability caveats, and sibling routing, while an output schema already documents the return shape. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains doi as the citing paper's DOI and fully specifies resolve's semantics (fetch metadata for the first N DOI-bearing references, max 20, sorted by citation count, default 0 = no extra calls). The doi entry is minimal but sufficient.

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 and resource ('List the references (bibliography) of a paper') and immediately clarifies the scope with 'the older works it cites.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling snowball_doi by declaring the reverse direction is not covered.

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?

Provides an explicit 'When to use' list (backward snowballing, checking relied-on sources) and a 'Notes' section that routes the agent to snowball_doi when the forward-citation direction is needed. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

Deploy Server