Infobroker

Get Citations

infobroker_get_citations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return academic references as BibTeX citations for a topic, including title, authors, year, venue, DOI, and URL—use when scholarly writing needs a reference list.

Instructions

Return academic references for a query as BibTeX citations with title, authors, year, venue, DOI, and URL. Use when scholarly writing needs a reference list. Do NOT use for general web search (use infobroker_search_web) or contested-claim verification (use infobroker_verify_claims). query is a natural-language topic; max_results sets the reference count, and larger values take longer and span more sources. References are gathered from every enabled academic provider, deduplicated by DOI (title when absent), and each provider's status is reported in meta.providers; a zero-result answer names the providers tried. Needs no API key when at least one scholarly source is reachable; if every source fails it returns an [ERROR] envelope with remediation, and queries respect per-provider rate limits. Returns an [OK] or [ERROR] JSON envelope.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "infobroker_get_citations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search query
`max_results`	No	Maximum references to return (1-30, default 8)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`notices`	No
`results`	No
`provider`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2026.10.30Nov 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "remediation": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "notices": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ok",
+        "error"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "provider"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.1.1Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real behavior: dedup by DOI with title fallback, per-provider status in meta.providers, provider names on zero results, per-provider rate limits, and no API key needed when at least one source is reachable. It also discloses the [OK]/[ERROR] envelope and error remediation, though it does not explain why an open-world tool is idempotent or how partial failures surface in the OK case.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then parameters, then behavior — a logical funnel. The single dense paragraph is long and mixes parameter notes into the middle, but virtually every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not spell out return values, yet it still summarizes the envelope shape and provider metadata. For a 2-parameter read tool it covers purpose, routing, cost, failure modes, and auth requirements completely.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: `query` is a natural-language topic (not keywords/syntax), and larger `max_results` increases latency and spans more sources — useful cost information absent from the schema's simple range note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns academic references as BibTeX citations — and immediately enumerates the fields produced (title, authors, year, venue, DOI, URL). It then names both sibling tools it is not (infobroker_search_web, infobroker_verify_claims), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ("scholarly writing needs a reference list") and explicit when-not-to-use with the correct alternative named for each exclusion (web search vs. claim verification). Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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

Deploy Server