Skip to main content
Glama

jp_lit_enrich_record

Verify Japanese literature candidates by matching DOI, title, authors, and year against Crossref and OpenAlex to return bibliographic confidence and evidence.

Instructions

read-only。既に見つけた単一文献候補を Crossref / OpenAlex で DOI・タイトル・著者・刊行年から照合し、候補の書誌確認 confidence と根拠を返す。文献検索 source ではなく、NDL / CiNii / J-STAGE / IRDB などで得た候補の外部検証に使う。OpenAlex は OPENALEX_API_KEY が無い場合 skipped になり、未収録・低引用は日本語人文系での低重要度を意味しない

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiNo照合したい DOI。URL 形式や doi: 接頭辞でもよい。指定すると title より DOI 照合を優先する。
titleNo照合したい候補タイトル。DOI が無い人文系文献では title / authors / issued_year の組み合わせで補助照合する。
authorsNo候補の著者名配列。未指定なら空配列として扱う。title-only 照合の confidence 判定に使う。
providersNo照合に使う外部 provider。Crossref は無認証、OpenAlex は OPENALEX_API_KEY が無い場合 skipped になる。
issued_yearNo候補の刊行年。title-only 照合の confidence 判定に使う。
force_refreshNotrue の場合はローカル cache を使わず upstream API から再取得する。false の場合は保存済み cache を優先する。

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cacheNo
queryYes
cautionYes
matchesYes
providersYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only, explains verification purpose, notes OpenAlex may be skipped if key missing, and clarifies that missing/low-citation does not imply low importance for Japanese humanities.

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?

Description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with 'read-only'. Covers key aspects but could be slightly more structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given schema coverage and presence of output schema, description is mostly complete. It specifies single candidate matching and provides sufficient context for a verification tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context but does not significantly augment schema information. Baseline 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 starts with 'read-only' and clearly states the tool matches a single literature candidate against Crossref/OpenAlex using DOI, title, author, and year. It returns confidence and evidence, distinguishing it from search sources.

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?

Explicitly states it is not a literature search source but for external verification of candidates from NDL/CiNii/J-STAGE/IRDB. Mentions OpenAlex skipping without API key, providing clear when-to-use and when-not guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/itarunnn/jp-lit-mcp'

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