Skip to main content
Glama
mlava

Scholar Sidekick

Verify Citation

verifyCitation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a citation's title against the paper at its DOI or other identifier, catching fabricated references that pair a real ID with an invented title. Provides matched, mismatch, or not-found verdicts.

Instructions

Verify a claimed citation against the resolved record at its identifier. Detects the dominant AI-driven fabrication pattern documented by Topaz et al. (Lancet 2026): a real, resolvable identifier (DOI / PMID / PMCID / arXiv / etc.) paired with a title that does NOT correspond to the paper at that identifier. Use when the user pastes a citation and asks 'is this real?' or 'check this DOI' — most fabricated citations resolve cleanly under doi.org but their cited title and the resolved title disagree. Single citation per call. Required: title plus exactly one identifier (doi, pmid, pmcid, isbn, arxiv, issn, ads, or whoIrisUrl). Optional refinements: author (first-author family name), year, container (journal). Set screenWithLlm: true to invoke the Stage 3 LLM screen on low-confidence mismatches (catches informal-abbreviation false positives); LLM access is gated to authenticated first-party keys and paid RapidAPI tiers — anonymous callers get 400 LLM_SCREEN_FORBIDDEN. Returns: { verdict: 'matched' | 'mismatch' | 'not_found' | 'ambiguous', confidence: 'high' | 'medium' | 'low', matched: , mismatches: [{field, claimed, resolved, similarity}], candidates: [{item, registries, score}] (when title-search ran), provenance: {stages_run, resolved_via, registries_searched, llm_screen} }. Verdict semantics: 'matched' = claim agrees with resolved record; 'mismatch' = identifier resolves but title does not match (Topaz fabrication pattern); 'ambiguous' = identifier resolves to one paper but the claimed title matches a DIFFERENT paper found via title-search (CITADEL 'citation error' subtype — wrong identifier for a real paper); 'not_found' = neither the identifier nor the title resolves anywhere. No sibling tool overlaps: resolveIdentifier returns metadata for a known-good identifier; verifyCitation is the only tool that cross-checks claimed title vs resolved metadata. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously for the non-LLM path; the Stage 3 LLM screen requires authentication — set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) or use a paid RapidAPI tier. SCHOLAR_API_KEY also raises your rate limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adsNoNASA ADS bibcode (19 chars).
doiNoDOI as cited (with or without https://doi.org/ prefix; a shortDOI alias such as 10/aabbe is accepted here too and expanded to the full DOI). Provide whichever identifier(s) the cited reference carries; the verifier uses the first one in priority order doi > pmid > pmcid > arxiv > ads > isbn > issn > whoIrisUrl.
isbnNoISBN (10- or 13-digit, hyphens tolerated).
issnNoISSN for journal-level resolution.
pmidNoPubMed ID as cited (digits only, or with 'PMID:' prefix).
yearNoPublication year as cited. Wrong year alone does not flip the verdict, but >=2-year gap from the resolved record lowers confidence.
arxivNoarXiv ID (e.g. '2301.08745' or 'arXiv:2301.08745'; old-style 'hep-ph/0501023' accepted).
pmcidNoPubMed Central ID (e.g. 'PMC1234567' or 'PMCID:1234567').
titleYesThe title as it appears in the cited reference. This is the field the verifier cross-checks against the resolved record at the supplied identifier. Required.
authorNoFirst-author family name as cited. Refines the verdict — a title-vs-resolved-title match plus an author mismatch raises suspicion of fabrication. Pass only the family name (e.g. 'Topaz', not 'Topaz, Maxim').
containerNoJournal or container name as cited (e.g. 'The Lancet', 'Neuroscience'). Soft signal — surfaced as a mismatch field but does not gate the verdict.
whoIrisUrlNoWHO IRIS URL (https://iris.who.int/...).
screenWithLlmNoOpt-in Stage 3 LLM screen. Fires only when the pre-LLM verdict is mismatch with low confidence (the informal-abbreviation false-positive bucket). Gated: requires an authenticated first-party API key or a paid RapidAPI tier; anonymous / free callers receive 400 LLM_SCREEN_FORBIDDEN. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.11
    • changedInput schema / properties / doi / description
      Previous value: -"DOI as cited (with or without https://doi.org/ prefix). Provide whichever identifier(s) the cited reference carries; the verifier uses the first one in priority order doi > pmid > pmcid > arxiv > ads > isbn > issn > whoIrisUrl."New value: +"DOI as cited (with or without https://doi.org/ prefix; a shortDOI alias such as 10/aabbe is accepted here too and expanded to the full DOI). Provide whichever identifier(s) the cited reference carries; the verifier uses the first one in priority order doi > pmid > pmcid > arxiv > ads > isbn > issn > whoIrisUrl."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.3
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Addedv0.7.3
  4. Removedv0.7.1
  5. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces them ('Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry'). It goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing authentication gating (400 LLM_SCREEN_FORBIDDEN for anonymous callers), API key requirements and rate-limit effects, stage semantics for screenWithLlm, and the full return contract. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — purpose, pattern, triggers, constraints, gated behavior, return shape, verdict semantics, sibling exclusion, auth — but the whole thing is one dense, unbroken paragraph. The density is justified for a tool this complex, but breaking the return contract and verdict semantics into their own section would improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it delivers: complete return shape, four verdict definitions with examples, error behavior for the gated LLM path, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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% with rich per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value above the schema: the 'exactly one identifier' constraint that the schema's required array does not express, and how optional parameters modulate the verdict (author mismatch raises suspicion, >=2-year gap lowers confidence, container is a soft signal). It slightly overlaps the schema on identifier priority order, so not a 5.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+object pairing — 'Verify a claimed citation against the resolved record at its identifier' — and immediately names the exact fabrication pattern it detects (real identifier + mismatched title, Topaz et al.). It explicitly differentiates itself from the overlapping sibling resolveIdentifier, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with example user phrasings ('is this real?' / 'check this DOI'), states the single-citation-per-call and exactly-one-identifier constraints, and explicitly names the alternative (resolveIdentifier) and why it is not appropriate. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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

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