Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Paper Search MCP Server

Paper Search MCP Server

by h-lu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

read_repec_paper

Helps access papers from RePEc/IDEAS by directing to freely available URLs or using read_scihub_paper for papers published before 2023.

Instructions

RePEc/IDEAS does NOT support direct paper reading.

INSTEAD (try in order):
1. Visit paper URL - many NBER/Fed papers are freely available
2. read_scihub_paper(doi) - if published before 2023

Args:
    paper_id: RePEc handle (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_repec_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYes
save_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description transparently discloses that the tool does not read a paper and returns an error message with alternatives, fully explaining its behavior without any annotations.

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 extremely concise, well-structured with a clear title, alternatives list, and parameter notes. Every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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 tool that solely returns an error with alternatives, the description is completely informative. No output schema is needed as the behavior is fully described.

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?

The description states that both parameters are unused, which adds meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). This clarifies that the tool ignores its arguments.

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 that the tool does not support direct paper reading, and its purpose is to return an error with alternatives. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_scihub_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?

The description explicitly provides an ordered list of alternatives to use instead of this tool, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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