paper-preflight

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get verified BibTeX

preflight_bib_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a DOI, arXiv ID, or title and return a verified BibTeX entry built from registry records, flagging ambiguous, missing, or retracted references.

Instructions

Get a BibTeX entry for a DOI, an arXiv ID or a title, built from the registry record instead of written from memory. Give identifier, or title (with author and year when you know them).

status is "found" (use bibtex as is), "ambiguous" (several works match: pick from candidates with the user, or retry with author/year), "not_found" (ask the user for the source; do not invent one) or "unavailable" (a source did not answer; retry later). A published preprint comes back as its published version with the eprint kept; status_flags lists notices such as "retracted".

Use it when adding or replacing one entry; to check a whole bibliography use preflight_check.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No	The publication year, to narrow a title search.
`title`	No	The work's title, when there is no identifier.
`author`	No	An author's family name, to narrow a title search.
`prefer`	No	For a preprint that has been published: which version to return.	published
`offline`	No	true: answer only from the local cache and never touch the network (references not cached yet come back as unverified).
`identifier`	No	A DOI (10.xxxx/...) or an arXiv ID (2401.01234). Give this or `title`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / author / description

Added value: +"An author's family name, to narrow a title search."

addedInput schema / properties / identifier / description

Added value: +"A DOI (10.xxxx/...) or an arXiv ID (2401.01234). Give this or `title`."

addedInput schema / properties / offline / description

Added value: +"true: answer only from the local cache and never touch the network (references not cached yet come back as unverified)."

addedInput schema / properties / prefer / description

Added value: +"For a preprint that has been published: which version to return."

addedInput schema / properties / title / description

Added value: +"The work's title, when there is no identifier."

addedInput schema / properties / year / description

Added value: +"The publication year, to narrow a title search."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent; the description goes well beyond by enumerating the four status outcomes and their required reactions, disclosing that published preprints return the published version with the eprint kept, and warning that status_flags can carry notices such as 'retracted'. That is exactly the behavioral context the annotations cannot provide.

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 purpose and inputs before the status taxonomy, and nearly every sentence carries useful information. It is somewhat long for a single lookup tool, and part of the status material overlaps with the existing output schema, but there is little outright filler.

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 an output schema already exists, the description need not restate return shapes, yet it still supplies the interpretive layer an agent needs: status handling, ambiguity resolution with the user, retraction notices, and offline/unverified behavior. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the either/or relationship between `identifier` and `title`, and that `author`/`year` are supplementary narrowing hints for a title search. It does not explain the `prefer` or `offline` toggles beyond what the schema already says, so it stops short of 5.

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 ('Get a BibTeX entry for a DOI, an arXiv ID or a title') and adds the key qualifier that it is built from the registry record rather than written from memory. This distinguishes it from a naive generation tool and from its sibling `preflight_check`, which handles whole bibliographies.

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?

Explicitly scopes use ('when adding or replacing one entry') and names the alternative for the other case ('to check a whole bibliography use preflight_check'). It also tells the agent what to do per status, including 'do not invent one' for not_found and retry later for unavailable — genuine when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server