jabref-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search

Find bibliographic entries in a JabRef library by query, author, year range, or tag, and retrieve matching records as formatted citation lines.

Instructions

Args: query: space-separated terms; every term must match (AND). Matches case-insensitively across all fields (title, author, keywords, abstract, ...) unless field is given. field: restrict the search to a single BibTeX field, e.g. "title", "author", "year", "doi", "abstract". author: only entries whose author field contains this substring. year: exact year match (single entry year). year_from / year_to: inclusive year range. tag: only entries whose keywords/tags contain this substring. limit: maximum number of results (0 = no limit).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`year`	No
`field`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`author`	No
`year_to`	No
`year_from`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains search semantics: AND logic, case-insensitivity, field restriction, substring matching for author/tag, inclusive year ranges, and the limit behavior. However, it does not mention result ordering, pagination, or potential side effects (though search is inherently read-only). The disclosed details are substantive and go beyond a simple 'searches library'.

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?

The description is well-structured: a one-line summary with the return format, followed by a concise Args list. Each parameter gets a clear explanation without wasted words. The information is front-loaded, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 description covers the purpose, return format, and all parameter semantics, which is sufficient for a search tool. It lacks explicit notes on ordering, pagination, or error behavior, but these are not critical for basic usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, though the description already provides it. Overall, the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so comprehensively, explaining each parameter's purpose and behavior: query terms (space-separated, AND), field restriction, author substring, exact year, year range, tag substring, and limit (0 = no limit). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 it searches the JabRef library and returns matching entries with a specific output format. The verb 'Search' and the resource 'JabRef library' are explicit, and the mention of returning matching entries distinguishes it from listing or fetching a single entry.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like list_entries or get_entry. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would favor one over another, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameters alone.

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

Deploy Server