CiteCheck MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| open_projectA | Open (or re-open after edits) a manuscript. Parses sentences, citations, the bibliography and restores previous verdicts. Returns an overview: language, counts, keys missing from the .bib. |
| list_claimsC | List cited sentences ('claims') with their keys, location and verification status (paginated). |
| get_claimB | Full detail for one claim: plain text, raw LaTeX, neighbouring sentences, cited references (with source availability) and existing verdicts. |
| fetch_sourcesA | Locate the PDF of each cited reference (bib |
| attach_pdfA | Attach a local PDF to a reference (for paywalled papers or to replace a wrong match). |
| find_evidenceA | Rank the source's sentences by relevance to the claim (BM25 + number matching). Each hit has the exact text, page and surrounding context; copy quotes verbatim from here. |
| read_sourceB | Read a source page by page (or from a sentence id), e.g. the abstract, or around a search hit. |
| verify_quoteB | Check that a quote is really in the source (fuzzy-tolerant to PDF artifacts, threshold 90/100). Returns the page and the exact source passage. |
| record_verdictA | Record the verdict for one (claim, key) pair. Every quote is verified against the PDF first; the verdict is rejected if any quote is not verbatim. |
| audit_statusB | Progress overview: claims per status, sources per status, rewrites per status. |
| scan_uncitedB | Find sentences without citations that look like factual claims needing one (numbers, comparisons, 'studies show'-style wording in EN/PT). Heuristic: the host must judge each candidate. |
| check_bibliographyB | Check the bibliography: cited keys missing from the .bib, unused entries, duplicates, missing DOIs, metadata that differs from Crossref, retractions/corrections, preprints that have a published version. |
| export_reportC | Write a self-contained HTML report with every claim, verdict, verified quote (with page), rewrite and bibliography problem. |
| propose_rewriteA | Propose a replacement for one sentence. Validates LaTeX (braces, $, special chars), citation keys (none lost, all new ones in the .bib) and language. Nothing is written until apply_rewrite. |
| propose_insertionB | Propose new text after an existing sentence (e.g. a paragraph drafted from verified evidence). Applied with apply_rewrite like any rewrite. |
| apply_rewriteA | Write a proposed rewrite into the manuscript file (atomic write, original encoding and line endings kept, backup in .citecheck/backups). Only call after the user approved the diff. |
| revert_rewriteC | Undo an applied rewrite. |
| discard_rewriteC | Discard a proposed (not applied) rewrite. |
| list_rewritesC | List rewrites with their diffs. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| audit | Audit the citations of a manuscript (LaTeX/Markdown, EN or PT). |
| rewrite | Suggest rewrites for problematic claims (or a section), in English or Portuguese, keeping LaTeX and citations intact. |
| write_with_evidence | Draft a paragraph grounded only in verified passages from the given sources. |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 19 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: verify_quote checks, find_evidence ranks, and record_verdict persists, while read_source, open_project, fetch_sources, and attach_pdf all target different resource stages. The rewrite lifecycle (propose_rewrite, propose_insertion, apply_rewrite, revert_rewrite, discard_rewrite, list_rewrites) is also cleanly separated by action.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (verify_quote, open_project, list_claims, apply_rewrite, etc.). There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs; even the rewrite variants follow a predictable propose/apply/revert/discard/list scheme.
19 tools is on the heavy side of the ideal 3-15 range, but the domain (citation checking of a manuscript) is genuinely multi-stage and each tool earns its place. No redundant tools inflate the count.
The surface covers the full workflow: opening a project, listing/getting claims, verifying and recording verdicts, bibliography checks, source fetching, rewrite proposal through rollback, and report export. Minor gaps like closing/archiving a project or a search-within-bibliography helper exist but are workable.