Skip to main content
Glama

retraction_status

Check if a paper is retracted or withdrawn via PMC's flag and Crossref notices; reports unverifiable when sources don't answer.

Instructions

Is the paper retracted? Reads PMC's is_retracted flag and Crossref's notices.

Retraction, withdrawal and removal notices count; corrections do not; an expression of concern is reported separately. NOT_RETRACTED_AS_OF means no retraction notice was found in the sources consulted, as of its date; it needs the identifier to have resolved and every consulted source to have answered, otherwise the status is UNVERIFIABLE. A paper PMC does not hold is checked on Crossref alone, and one with no known DOI on PMC's flag alone; sources shows which answered. For a paper outside PMC, pass its DOI. Not logged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesOne paper: a DOI ("10.1590/1516-3180.2016.1344090516" or a doi.org URL), a PMCID ("PMC10496602") or a PMID written with its cue ("PMID 27355798")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofYesFor NOT_RETRACTED_AS_OF: the date of the earliest check; no retraction notice was found in the sources consulted as of then
reasonYes
statusYes
concernYesAn expression of concern is on record
sourcesYes
identifierNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it defines NOT_RETRACTED_AS_OF, explains that it is only returned when the identifier resolved and all sources answered, describes the UNVERIFIABLE fallback, documents source-fallback behavior for papers not in PMC, exposes the `sources` field, and notes 'Not logged.' These are genuine behavioral traits beyond any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and behavior, then organized into status definitions and edge cases; every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly long for a one-parameter tool, but the length is mostly justified by the status semantics that cannot live in the schema.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the `sources` field and the meaning of each status, fully covering the edge cases (non-PMC papers, missing DOI, unresolved identifiers). Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: it clarifies the identifier addresses a single paper and gives routing advice ('For a paper outside PMC, pass its DOI'), plus the requirement that the identifier resolve for a definitive status. That is meaningful meaning beyond the format examples in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific question-verb framing ('Is the paper retracted?') and names the exact mechanism ('Reads PMC's is_retracted flag and Crossref's notices'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like check_quote or resolve_identifier, which concern quotations and identifier resolution respectively.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear routing context: 'For a paper outside PMC, pass its DOI,' and explains that corrections are excluded while expressions of concern are reported separately. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong context without full exclusion guidance.

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