Skip to main content
Glama
amos689

paper-preflight

Find the passages a citation rests on

preflight_cited_passages
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches passages from a cited work for each paper sentence that cites it, ranking evidence so you can judge whether the source supports the claim.

Instructions

For each sentence of the paper that cites key: the claim it makes and the passages of the cited work ranked best for that claim, for you to judge whether the work supports it. The first call downloads the work's text (its arXiv source, an open-access full text or PDF, or else its abstract) into the local cache.

Judge each claim conservatively. Say "confirmed" only when a passage states it (quote the passage word for word) or, for a citation set right after a name such as "Adam \cite{...}", when name_in_title is true. Otherwise say "could not confirm", with the reason: no text, only the abstract, or no passage says it. Never call a citation wrong or invented on this evidence: the text may say it in other words, or be only an abstract. evidence.level is "full_text", "abstract" or "none".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
pathNo.
offlineNo
max_passagesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the first call downloads and caches the work's text from arXiv/OA/PDF or falls back to the abstract, and it enumerates evidence.level values ('full_text', 'abstract', 'none'). It stops short of describing cache staleness or rate/failure behavior on repeated calls.

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 what the tool returns, followed by concrete judging instructions that are actionable for an agent rather than filler. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence constrains agent behavior (quote verbatim, prefer 'could not confirm', never declare a citation wrong).

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be re-explained, and the description adds the workflow and interpretive guidance needed for a non-trivial fetch-and-judge tool. The main completeness gap is the undocumented optional parameters, which the description does not address.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, yet only `key` is meaningfully explained (the citation key being traced). `path`, `offline`, and `max_passages` are never mentioned, leaving their semantics to be guessed despite the low coverage.

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 precise verb+resource: for each citing sentence it returns the claim plus the best-ranked passages of the cited work. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like preflight_bib_lookup or preflight_bib_fix, which operate on bibliography data rather than tracing a citation to source text.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the use case (deciding whether a cited work supports a claim) and gives a judgment protocol, but it never states when to choose this tool over preflight_check or preflight_explain, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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