OpenPapers

Get references

get_references

Fetch scholarly references from Semantic Scholar with provenance details to verify sources and support reproducible research workflows.

Instructions

Retrieve Semantic Scholar references with provenance.

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": {
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`paper_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only gestures at behavior through the unexplained 'with provenance'. It does not state what happens for an invalid or missing paper_id, what provenance covers, whether results are sorted or paginated, or anything about the response shape.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It earns most of its words, though the trailing 'with provenance' adds little since it is never elaborated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the tool description should carry substantial context but does not. It omits return-value expectations, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation — an agent is left guessing about how to invoke it correctly and what to do with the result.

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 compensate, but it adds only the context that the tool deals with Semantic Scholar papers. It fails to clarify the expected paper_id format (e.g., S2 corpus ID vs arXiv ID) or what the limit parameter controls beyond the numeric bounds already present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a concrete resource ('Semantic Scholar references'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling get_citations, and the phrase 'with provenance' is vague — an agent cannot tell what provenance data is actually included.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use get_references versus its many siblings, especially the closely related get_citations, get_related_papers, and get_paper. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are given, so the agent must guess at the intended selection criteria.

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