Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-scholar-mcp

google-scholar-mcp

by dihannahdi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

read_paper

Retrieve metadata and access a locally stored paper by providing its paper ID from your saved papers list.

Instructions

Read metadata and access a locally stored paper.

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": {
      "paperId": "<paperId>"
    },
    "name": "read_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paperIdYesLocal paper ID (from list_papers)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what exactly is returned (only metadata or the full paper), or any constraints like requiring the paper to be locally stored.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one required string parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. However, it would benefit from clarifying what 'access' means (e.g., reading full text vs. metadata) and specifying the output format.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter paperId, and the schema already describes it as 'Local paper ID (from list_papers).' The description adds no further meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Read metadata and access a locally stored paper.' It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (metadata of a locally stored paper), distinguishing it from siblings that handle downloads, citations, or 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_paper or get_related_articles. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for optimal use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools