NetworkX MCP Server

build_citation_network

Construct a citation network graph from DOIs using CrossRef, recursively expanding references to reveal scholarly connections.

Instructions

Build citation network from DOIs using CrossRef API

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": {
      "graph": "<graph>",
      "seed_dois": "<seed_dois>"
    },
    "name": "build_citation_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`graph`	Yes
`max_depth`	No
`seed_dois`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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 disclosing behavior. It mentions the CrossRef API hinting at external network calls, but does not disclose rate limits, failure modes, whether the graph must pre-exist, or if the tool modifies the graph in place. Significant behavioral context is missing.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and source, making it easy to parse, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of semantic depth.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (external API, graph mutation, multiple parameters), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks parameter details, behavioral expectations, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The phrase 'from DOIs' hints at seed_dois, but the 'graph' and 'max_depth' parameters are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without necessary semantics.

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 a specific action ('Build citation network') and its source ('from DOIs using CrossRef API'), making it distinguishable from generic graph operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_graph or add_nodes. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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