Scholar MCP Server

batch_lookup_tool

Retrieve titles, authors, year, citation count, and open access status for up to 50 DOIs in one request. Ideal for processing reference lists or comparing multiple papers.

Instructions

Batch-fetch metadata for multiple DOIs in a single call. Accepts a list of DOIs (up to 50). Returns title, authors, year, citation count, and OA status for each. Useful for processing reference lists or comparing multiple papers at once.

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": {
      "dois": "<dois>"
    },
    "name": "batch_lookup_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dois`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it accepts up to 50 DOIs and returns specific fields (title, authors, year, citation count, OA status). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately covers the operation's read-only nature and output structure.

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?

The description is three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the core action and then provides detail, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 simple batch lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid DOIs) and partial results, which would enhance completeness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has low coverage (0%), but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies the parameter is a list of DOIs with a maximum of 50, and it clarifies the expected output fields. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's action: 'Batch-fetch metadata for multiple DOIs in a single call.' It specifies the resource (DOIs) and the verb (batch-fetch), which distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_paper_details that handle single DOIs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context for usage: 'Useful for processing reference lists or comparing multiple papers at once.' This implicitly suggests when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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