Scopus Plus MCP

bibliographic_coupling

Build a bibliographic-coupling graph from seed papers to map the research front: edges connect papers sharing cited references, with weights and cosine scores. Exports GraphML and CSV edge lists.

Instructions

Build a bibliographic-coupling graph for a set of seed papers. Two seeds are coupled when they share cited references; edge weight = count of shared references, cosine = Salton index. Maps the current research front. Scopus needs an entitled (subscriber) key for REF-view access; source='openalex' does not. Output: GraphML + CSV edge list written to disk.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "seed_ids": "<seed_ids>"
    },
    "name": "bibliographic_coupling"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No	Data source. 'scopus' (default) needs subscriber entitlement for search, citations and references. 'openalex' needs none: IDs may be DOIs, OpenAlex work IDs (W...), or Scopus IDs (resolved to a DOI via Scopus metadata), and results carry OpenAlex IDs. Never mix sources within one analysis.	scopus
`seed_ids`	Yes	Seed papers: Scopus IDs (bare numeric or SCOPUS_ID: prefixed). With source='openalex', DOIs and OpenAlex work IDs also work.
`min_shared`	No	Minimum shared references for an edge to be emitted (default 2).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it discloses the entitlement requirement for Scopus (subscriber key for REF-view), that OpenAlex needs none, and that outputs are written to disk as GraphML plus a CSV edge list. It omits run-time behavior such as cost, rate limits, or what the tool returns to the caller.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and edge definition, then the entitlement caveat, then the output artifacts. Every sentence contributes and none is redundant.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the coupling definition, auth prerequisites, and on-disk outputs, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not clarify the response payload or whether this runs synchronously or as a job.

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 the schema already documents source, seed_ids, and min_shared thoroughly, including the never-mix-sources rule. The description restates the Scopus entitlement constraint but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('build a bibliographic-coupling graph for a set of seed papers') and immediately defines the coupling relation and edge weight, which cleanly separates it from siblings like co_citation and citation_network. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Maps the current research front' hints at the analytic purpose, but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings such as co_citation, citation_network, or research_fronts, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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