semantic-scholar-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

s2_batch_papers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up up to 500 papers by ID in one request. Returns unified results and reports unresolved identifiers in a coverage note for easy tracking.

Instructions

Look up up to 500 papers at once by ID. Returns the unified envelope; identifiers the API could not resolve are counted in a PARTIAL_NOT_FOUND diagnostic and listed in coverage_note.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "s2_batch_papers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait beyond the annotations: partial failure handling via PARTIAL_NOT_FOUND diagnostic and coverage_note listing unresolved IDs. Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, so this additional error-handling context is valuable.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences with no redundancy. The key batch limit is front-loaded, and the partial-failure behavior is succinctly described.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a straightforward batch lookup with a single parameter, the description covers the operational limit, the input mode, and the return envelope's failure diagnostics. Annotations and output schema fill remaining needs, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The description adds the 'up to 500' limit and batch semantics, but it does not explain accepted ID types (S2 IDs, DOIs, ArXiv IDs) or format requirements. The input schema provides this detail, and with only one parameter the description's contribution is limited but meaningful.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Look up'), resource ('papers'), and mode ('by ID', batch up to 500). This clearly distinguishes it from s2_search_papers (search by query) and s2_get_paper (single ID lookup).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the usage context clear: use when you have a batch of paper IDs to resolve. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with single-ID and search tools is strongly implied by 'at once by ID'.

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

Deploy Server