litcheck-mcp

citing_papers

Find works that cite a given DOI or OpenAlex work ID via OpenAlex, then record the search in an append-only log.

Instructions

List works that cite a paper, from OpenAlex, and record the search in the log.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many items to return (1-100)
`identifier`	Yes	The cited work: a DOI or an OpenAlex work id (W123...)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`engine`	Yes
`reason`	Yes
`status`	Yes	UNVERIFIABLE means the search did not complete: an empty item list then says nothing about what exists
`log_seq`	Yes
`log_path`	Yes
`hit_count`	Yes
`response_sha256`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a real side effect: the search is recorded in the log. It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or whether the log write can fail, so the behavioral picture is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, resource, source, and side effect with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, source, and the logging side effect, leaving only alternative-tool routing unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (identifier, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the identifier ('a paper') and never mentions the limit, so it adds little beyond structured data; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('works that cite a paper'), plus the data source (OpenAlex), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling search_literature, which is the nearest overlapping capability, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a different sibling (e.g. search_literature, resolve_identifier) is the better choice, and no prerequisites stated. The only usage signal is implied by the description's subject matter.

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

Deploy Server