Skip to main content
Glama
mlava

Scholar Sidekick

by mlava
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to Scholar Sidekick

  • cite-mcp

    ndchikin
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Retrieve citation data effortlessly from CiteAs and Google Scholar. Get BibTeX-formatted citations for your resources with just a few commands. Enhance your research workflow by integrating citation retrieval directly into your applications.
    2
    14
    MIT

Related Servers

  • genpark-canonical-doi-bibtex

    alphaparkinc
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables resolving academic DOIs to canonical identifiers and generating BibTeX records via CrossRef, and can be integrated into MCP-compliant clients for automated research workflows.
    8
    -

  • ColabAI MCP Server

    AhmedCoolProjects
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents and LLM tools to verify academic citations against real literature, detect hallucinated references, retrieve authoritative metadata and DOIs, generate BibTeX/APA/IEEE citations, and search over 200M+ scientific publications via MCP tools.
    3
    12 npm
    MIT

  • AgentCite

    Kevinx702
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Fabrication-free, DOI-backed citations for AI content and agents, using openAlex public-domain data with resolvable DOIs. Includes an API and planned MCP server for agent-native citation retrieval.
    -

  • BibTeX MCP Server

    xeophon
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Searches academic references from arXiv, DBLP, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex concurrently and generates BibTeX citations.
    4
    11
    MIT
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Scored across 7 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with explicit cross-references to sibling tools ('No sibling tool overlaps', 'Use resolveIdentifier instead when...'). The single/batch distinction between verifyCitation and auditBibliography is well-defined, and the metadata vs. formatted-string vs. file-export distinction among resolveIdentifier/formatCitation/exportCitation is unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All seven tools follow a consistent verb_noun camelCase pattern: verifyCitation, auditBibliography, checkRetraction, checkOpenAccess, resolveIdentifier, formatCitation, exportCitation. The repeated 'check' prefix across two tools is purposeful since they are parallel status-check operations.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool earns its place in the scholarly citation workflow: verification (single + batch), retraction/OA status checks, identifier resolution, citation formatting, and export. No redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The identifier-centric workflow is well covered: resolve → verify (single/batch) → format → export, plus retraction and OA status checks. Minor gaps exist: no title-based search tool (the server requires an identifier to start), no batch counterpart to checkOpenAccess (agents must loop), and no standalone batch retraction check outside auditBibliography.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources