Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to med-lit-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables traceable scholarly literature reviews using free APIs, generating reports where every claim links to evidence IDs.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables LLM-assisted biomedical literature screening and structured extraction from PubMed alerts, PMIDs, DOIs, and GEO accessions, with full-text retrieval and multi-provider LLM support.
      55 PyPI
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables locally-first literature research through an MCP host by collecting sources, parsing documents, retrieving evidence, validating citations, and exporting research records in multiple formats.
      38
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to run reproducible, high-recall literature search across seven source families with RRF fusion, fetch open-access full texts (falling back to abstracts), expand citations, export BibTeX/RIS, and audit reference coverage — all without any LLM API key, leaving query planning and writing to the agent. Multiple agent clients share one accumulating literature pool and background search jobs that keep running after sessions close.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      AI-operable research workspace integrating Zotero, Obsidian, and NotebookLM. Search papers (arXiv/Semantic Scholar/PubMed/CrossRef), ingest into Zotero, sync per-paper notes to Obsidian, verify NotebookLM briefs. All three external tools optional.
      76
      66 PyPI
      64
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables read-only cognitive retrospect over Obsidian notes, surfacing stance changes, verifying claims with citable evidence, and avoiding unfounded causal stories via hybrid retrieval and eight read-only MCP tools.
      9
      10
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 33 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Descriptions are detailed and mostly stage-scoped, clearly separating triage, screening, fetching, extraction, wiki, synthesis, and duplicate resolution. Some boundaries blur between record_screening_decisions and review_article, and between the manual next_*/record_* workflow and the bot_start/bot_next/bot_finish orchestration.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tool names use snake_case, which keeps the set readable and predictable at a high level. However, it mixes verb_noun forms like start_search and record_extraction with noun/prefixed forms like guide, project_settings, next_synthesis, and bot_start.

    Tool Count3/5

    33 tools is heavy, though the broad literature-review lifecycle gives some justification for a large surface. There is likely redundancy between the bot orchestration tools and the many manual next_*/record_* stage tools.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers project setup, question validation, search, triage, screening, fetching, extraction, wiki/synthesis, duplicate resolution, export, and bot runs, leaving few dead ends. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit delete/archive project or remove-article operation.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues