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
      A
      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.
      98 PyPI
      2
      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
      150 PyPI
      58
      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
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables an agent to capture cited sources with extracted bibliographic metadata, keep linked research notes, and search them all. It turns those into BibTeX, annotated Markdown bibliographies, or themed literature-review outlines, stored as plain files inside the project.
      17
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Enables creation of persistent, compounding knowledge bases using Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern with LLM-maintained markdown wikis. Supports automated ingestion, cross-referencing, synthesis, and linting of sources as an alternative to traditional RAG systems.
      61
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 26 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target distinct workflow stages (project setup, search, screening, fetching, wiki extraction, synthesis), so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few boundaries are fuzzy, especially between record_screening_decisions and review_article, and between resolve_duplicates and merge_entities, but descriptions provide enough guidance.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Nearly all tools use snake_case with a predictable verb-led pattern such as list_articles, create_project, record_extraction, and resolve_duplicates. Minor deviations like guide and wiki_tasks are readable but slightly break the strict verb_noun convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    26 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, and several stage-specific helpers could likely be consolidated. The complex systematic-review pipeline justifies more tools than a simple CRUD server, but the count is still at the borderline-heavy end.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core review lifecycle: projects, question validation, search, screening, fetching, extraction, wiki curation, synthesis, and export. Minor gaps like project deletion/renaming or criteria updates are workable around, but not every lifecycle operation is exposed.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessNo issues