Skip to main content
Glama
ebiyu

crossref-mcp

by ebiyu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinct: one retrieves a specific work by DOI, the other searches for works using query parameters. There is no overlap in their purposes, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get_work_by_doi' and 'search_works'. The naming clearly indicates the action and the resource, and there is no mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a general Crossref API, but for the narrow purpose of retrieving works by identifier or search, it is minimally sufficient. The count is at the low end of what is reasonable.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflows of looking up a work by DOI and searching for works are covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no support for other identifiers or listing all works of an author directly, but the primary use cases are addressed.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description is fully responsible for behavioral disclosure. It explains accepted DOI formats and the returned dictionary fields, which is useful, but it does not mention error behavior, missing metadata, or any side effects.

    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?

    Three concise, front-loaded sections with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by args and returns, both of which earn their place.

    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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, what the parameter expects, and what the return value contains. The output schema exists, so return-value detail in the description is a bonus.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents the single doi parameter with a concrete example, the full URL alternative, and its role. This adds substantial meaning beyond the mere property name 'Doi'.

    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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve bibliographic metadata for a single work by its DOI.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling search_works by emphasizing single-work lookup via DOI rather than general search.

    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 context is clear: use this when you have a DOI and need metadata for one specific work. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it, but the single-work framing implicitly distinguishes it from search_works.

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

  • 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 the return structure (dictionary with total_results and works list), the row limit (1-50), and the requirement for at least one query parameter. This goes beyond the minimal description, although it doesn't discuss potential errors or side effects (though 'Search' implies read-only).

    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 and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a concise one-sentence summary, a necessary constraint note, a tight argument list, and a clear returns section. No wasted words or redundant information.

    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?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, parameter semantics, required input conditions, and return format. It references get_work_by_doi for the shape of result items, which is sufficient given the output schema exists. The description is complete and self-contained.

    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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: query (free-text across all fields), title (restrict to title), author (restrict to author names), and rows (number of results with range and default). It also clarifies that at least one of query/title/author must be provided, which is not evident from the schema alone.

    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 begins with 'Search Crossref for works by free text, title, and/or author,' which clearly states the action (search) and resource (Crossref works). It also specifies the search facets, distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_work_by_doi, which retrieves a single work by DOI.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies when to use the tool ('Search Crossref for works'), and the constraint 'At least one of query, title, or author must be provided' gives a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as contrasting with get_work_by_doi when a DOI is known.

    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/ebiyu/crossref-mcp'

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