Scholar MCP Server

fetch_pdf_text_scihub_tool

Resolve a DOI via Sci-Hub and extract full text from the PDF using PyMuPDF.

Instructions

An all-in-one bypass that resolves a DOI via Sci-Hub and directly extracts its full text using PyMuPDF.

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": {
      "doi": "<doi>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_pdf_text_scihub_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It mentions 'bypass' implying circumvention, but fails to disclose failure modes (e.g., Sci-Hub down, PDF not extractable), rate limits, or caching behavior.

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 a single efficient sentence front-loading the key functionality. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more structured with separate mentions of resolution and extraction steps.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and a complex tool involving paywall bypass and PDF extraction, the description is too brief. It does not cover output schema details, reliability, or limitations. The presence of an output schema doesn't excuse missing behavioral context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema has one parameter (doi) with 0% description coverage. The description adds context that the DOI is resolved via Sci-Hub, but does not specify format, examples, or validation rules. It provides some meaning but not comprehensive detail.

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 it resolves a DOI via Sci-Hub and extracts full text using PyMuPDF, specifying the verb (resolve, extract) and resource (DOI, PDF). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_pdf_text_unpaywall_tool and get_scihub_link_tool by combining both steps.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid DOI, Sci-Hub availability) or comparison with sibling tools like get_scihub_link_tool or get_full_text_tool.

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