Skip to main content
Glama
mlava

Scholar Sidekick

Check Retraction

checkRetraction
Read-onlyIdempotent

Determine if a scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or received an expression of concern. Accepts DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv, or ADS identifiers and returns clear status flags for safe citation decisions.

Instructions

Check whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or had an expression of concern raised. Use when the user asks 'has this paper been retracted?' or wants to verify a paper's standing before citing it (clinical, regulatory, evidence-synthesis contexts). For multi-paper bibliography audits (clinical guidelines, systematic reviews), loop one call per identifier — the tool intentionally rejects batch input to keep retraction-status results unambiguous per work. Sourced from Crossref updated-by (which mirrors Retraction Watch). Resolves DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ADS inputs to a DOI before lookup; ISBN inputs always return doi=null and reason='no_doi' since books are not in the retraction graph. Single identifier per call — does NOT accept comma/newline batches; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Returns: { doi, resolvedFrom?, reason?, result } where result has isRetracted, hasCorrections, hasConcern (booleans), notices (array of {type: 'retraction'|'correction'|'expression-of-concern', label, doi, date, source}), and title; result is null when no DOI could be resolved and reason explains why ('no_doi'). No sibling tool overlaps this — resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not retraction status. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier; Crossref is queried server-side with its own caching.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesA single scholarly identifier to check. 1–500 characters. Non-DOI inputs are resolved to a DOI server-side before the lookup; if no DOI can be derived, the tool returns doi=null with reason='no_doi'. Pass exactly one identifier — comma/newline batches are NOT accepted by this tool; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Accepted: DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv ID, or NASA ADS bibcode (with or without prefixes). ISBN inputs are accepted but always return doi=null since books are not in the retraction graph.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant context beyond annotations: source from Crossref, identifier resolution behavior, ISBN handling, return structure, API tiers, and rate limits. No contradictions.

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 lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidelines, behavioral details, return format. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy in explaining identifier loops could be trimmed.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple identifier types, resolution, batch rejection, API tiers), the description covers all necessary context. No output schema, but return structure is explained. Sibling tools are listed and distinguished.

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 description coverage is 100% with a detailed description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds value by reiterating length limits, explaining identifier resolution, and ISBN behavior. While baseline is 3 due to high coverage, the additional context justifies a 4.

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 checks retraction, correction, or expression of concern for a single scholarly work. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('retraction status'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like resolveIdentifier.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use (user asks 'has this paper been retracted?', verifying standing before citing in clinical/regulatory contexts) and when not to use (for multi-paper audits, tool rejects batch input; loop one call per identifier). It also mentions alternative tools like resolveIdentifier.

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