Paper Search MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_pubmed_paper

Guides users to alternative reading methods when PubMed cannot provide direct paper access. Returns an error with suggestions: use Sci-Hub for papers published before 2023 or Semantic Scholar as a fallback.

Instructions

PubMed does NOT support direct paper reading.

INSTEAD (try in order):
1. read_scihub_paper(doi) - if published before 2023
2. read_semantic_paper(id) - last resort

Args:
    paper_id: PMID (unused).
    save_path: Unused.

Returns:
    Error message with alternatives.

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": {
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_pubmed_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper_id`	Yes
`save_path`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: parameters are unused, tool returns an error message. No contradictions.

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?

Very concise: three short paragraphs covering inability, alternatives, parameter descriptions, and return value. No extraneous text.

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 simple nature (error returner with no output schema), the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return value adequately.

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 compensates by explaining that paper_id is an unused PMID and save_path is unused. Adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 explicitly states that PubMed does not support direct paper reading, and the tool's purpose is to return an error message with alternatives. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming specific alternatives (read_scihub_paper, read_semantic_paper).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (PubMed doesn't support) and when-not-to-use (use alternatives instead). Offers a ranked list of alternatives with conditions, guiding the agent effectively.

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