Google Scholar MCP Server

search_open_access

Find full-text Open Access articles from CORE aggregator and get direct download links.

Instructions

Search for Open Access articles with full-text available.

Returns articles from CORE aggregator with direct download links.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_open_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of results (max 50)
`query`	Yes	Search query for Open Access articles

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`articles`	Yes
`total_results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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. It discloses that results come from the CORE aggregator and include direct download links, which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention any rate limits, pagination behavior, or potential side effects, though for a search tool these are less critical.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, the second adds the data source and key feature (download links). 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and data source. It explains that full-text is available and from where. It could be more explicit about the scope (only CORE aggregator) but is sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantics for the parameters (query and limit) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for Open Access articles with full-text available, and specifies the data source (CORE aggregator) and that direct download links are returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_articles and get_fulltext.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for Open Access articles with full text, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server