Google Scholar MCP Server

get_citations

Retrieve articles that cite a specific paper by providing its citation ID from a previous search.

Instructions

Get articles that cite a specific paper.

Use the citation_id from search_articles results.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "citation_id": "<citation_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_citations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`citation_id`	Yes	Citation ID from a previous search result
`num_results`	No	Number of citing articles (max 20)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`citation_id`	Yes
`citing_articles`	Yes
`total_citations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or handles invalid inputs. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a critical usage guideline. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the burden. The description covers the essential usage flow and parameter sourcing. It could mention the output format or error handling, but is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the source of citation_id (from search_articles results), which goes beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on num_results.

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 gets articles that cite a specific paper, a distinct purpose compared to siblings like search_articles or get_article_versions. The verb 'get' and resource 'articles that cite a specific paper' are specific.

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?

The description advises using citation_id from search_articles results, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but the guidance is helpful and minimizes ambiguity.

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

Deploy Server