Skip to main content
Glama
botanicastudios

Crossref MCP Server

by botanicastudios
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a paper by DOI, searching by author, and searching by title. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the query.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (getWorkByDOI, searchByAuthor, searchByTitle), with all tools using camelCase. However, the slight inconsistency in 'getWorkByDOI' (using 'Work' instead of 'Paper' or a more specific term) is a minor deviation from perfect alignment with the domain.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a Crossref domain that typically involves broader operations like searching by keyword, year, or journal. While the tools cover basic retrieval and search, the count is borderline low for comprehensive scientific paper access.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface has significant gaps for a Crossref server. Missing operations include searching by keyword, year, or journal, as well as CRUD-like actions such as listing or filtering results. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures when handling common academic queries.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the retrieval action but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid DOI), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the paper isn't found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

    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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the paper is returned in (metadata, full text, citation), error conditions, or any limitations. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

    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 schema already documents the 'doi' parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

    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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific scientific paper by its DOI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools (searchByAuthor, searchByTitle), but the DOI-based retrieval is inherently different from author/title searches.

    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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools. The description implies it's for DOI-based lookups, but there's no explicit comparison or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, what happens on errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making 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.

    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 a search tool that likely returns complex results, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

    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 schema already documents both parameters ('author' and 'rows') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's in the schema, such as search syntax or result ordering. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 clearly states the action ('Search for scientific papers') and resource ('by author in Crossref'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchByTitle' or 'getWorkByDOI' beyond the 'by author' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

    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 alternatives like 'searchByTitle' or 'getWorkByDOI'. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the search function but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the response format looks like (beyond 'scientific papers'). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential external API constraints.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information.

    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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (beyond 'scientific papers'), how results are structured, or any limitations of the Crossref API. For a search tool with external dependencies, more context is needed.

    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 input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., search behavior, title matching rules, result ordering). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

    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 clearly states the action ('Search for scientific papers') and resource ('by title in Crossref'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchByAuthor' or 'getWorkByDOI', which would be needed for a perfect score.

    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 alternatives like 'searchByAuthor' or 'getWorkByDOI'. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparative advantages, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

crossref-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

crossref-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/botanicastudios/crossref-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server