Skip to main content
Glama
mlava

Scholar Sidekick

Audit Bibliography

auditBibliography
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a whole bibliography at once: checks each citation for real, resolvable identifiers, matching titles, and retracted papers, returning a per-entry verdict table and summary.

Instructions

Verify a WHOLE bibliography in one call — the batch counterpart to verifyCitation. Each entry runs the same fabrication check (real, resolvable identifier paired with a title that does NOT match the resolved paper; Topaz et al., Lancet 2026) plus a retraction lookup, and the tool returns a per-entry verdict table and a corpus summary. Use when the user pastes a reference list, a .bib / .ris file, or asks to 'check all these citations at once' / 'audit my bibliography' / 'which of these references are fake or retracted'. Input: EITHER bibliography (raw BibTeX / RIS / CSL-JSON text — format auto-detected) OR claims (an array of pre-parsed {title + identifier} objects), not both. Capped at 25 entries per call; excess is dropped and reported via truncated. checks defaults to ['retraction'] (pass [] to skip); screenWithLlm opt-in per entry (same auth gating as verifyCitation). Returns: { format, entries: [{ index, sourceKey?, status: 'ok'|'error', verdict: 'matched' | 'mismatch' | 'not_found' | 'ambiguous', confidence, matched, mismatches, retraction: { checked, doi, isRetracted, hasCorrections, hasConcern, notices } | null, provenance }], parseErrors: [{ index, error, message }], truncated, summary: { total, matched, mismatch, ambiguous, not_found, errored, retracted } }. Per-entry leniency: one entry that fails to resolve becomes status:'error' without failing the batch. This audits citation IDENTITY (does each identifier resolve to the claimed work, and is it retracted) — it does NOT check whether a source supports the claim it is cited for. Read-only and idempotent. Works anonymously for the non-LLM path; SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) or a paid RapidAPI tier raises rate limits and enables the optional LLM screen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checksNoPer-entry enrichment checks. Defaults to ['retraction'] (flags retracted / corrected / expression-of-concern works via Crossref + Retraction Watch, keyed on each resolved DOI). Pass [] to skip.
claimsNoPre-parsed citations to audit — an alternative to `bibliography` for agents that already hold structured references. Each needs a `title` plus whatever identifiers the citation carries.
formatNoOverride format auto-detection for `bibliography`.
bibliographyNoRaw bibliography text to parse and audit — BibTeX, RIS, or CSL-JSON. Provide EITHER this or `claims`, not both. Format is auto-detected; override with `format`. Capped at 25 entries per call (excess dropped, reported via `truncated`).
screenWithLlmNoOpt-in Stage 3 LLM screen applied per entry (same gating as verifyCitation). Default false.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: read-only and idempotent, anonymous operation, API key requirements, per-entry leniency, truncation at 25 entries. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed but well-organized: starts with purpose, then usage, input format, behavior details. Every sentence adds value; front-loads key information. Slightly verbose but efficient for the complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (format, entries array with fields, parseErrors, truncated, summary). Covers edge cases (truncation, parse errors) and optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning: explains bibliography expects raw text, claims for pre-parsed, not both; checks default, format override, screenWithLlm opt-in. It informs agents about mutual exclusivity and caps.

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?

The description clearly states the tool verifies a whole bibliography in batch, defines the fabrication check and retraction lookup, and distinguishes itself from the sibling verifyCitation for single citations. It specifies the return format and use cases.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: when user pastes reference list, .bib/.ris file, or asks to check citations. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT check (source support) and implies alternatives like verifyCitation for single entries.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mlava/scholar-sidekick-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server