Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scipdf-mcp

scipdf-mcp

by gjjisadog
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

resolve_doi

Resolve academic paper titles, URLs, citations, or DOIs to their DOI using Crossref and OpenAlex. Returns candidate DOIs when the query is ambiguous.

Instructions

Resolve title/URL/citation to DOI via Crossref + OpenAlex. Returns candidates when ambiguous (code AMBIGUOUS_DOI).

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": "resolve_doi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesTitle, URL, citation, or DOI
query_typeNoHow to interpret query: auto (default), doi, url, title, or citation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using two sources and returning candidates when ambiguous, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 two clear, concise sentences with no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value—the first states the purpose and sources, the second explains the ambiguity handling.

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 no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves gaps, such as what the return format is (e.g., a string or object). It covers core behavior but could be more complete about error handling or response structure.

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 input schema covers both parameters (query, query_type) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 resolves titles, URLs, or citations to DOIs using specific sources (Crossref, OpenAlex), and mentions handling of ambiguous results. This differentiates it from siblings like 'check_mirrors' or 'download_paper' which serve different purposes.

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 its use for resolving to DOIs but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over others, such as 'lookup_unpaywall' for open access status. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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