Scholar MCP Server

format_citation_tool

Get a correctly formatted citation for any paper by providing its DOI. Choose from styles like APA, IEEE, and Chicago.

Instructions

Format a citation for a paper in a specific style. Supported styles: apa, ieee, chicago-author-date, harvard-cite-them-right, vancouver, modern-language-association, turabian-fullnote-bibliography. Uses CrossRef/DOI content negotiation for authoritative formatting.

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": "format_citation_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	Yes
`style`	No		apa

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions using CrossRef/DOI content negotiation, hinting at authoritative formatting, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or required DOI validity.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, supported styles, technology. Front-loaded and concise with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple 2-param tool and presence of output schema, the description covers the main purpose, styles, and technology. Minor gap: no mention of DOI format requirements.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It adds value by listing supported styles for the 'style' parameter, but does not clarify the 'doi' parameter format beyond the schema.

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 verb 'format' and the resource 'citation for a paper', and lists the supported styles, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bibtex_tool.

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 lists supported styles and mentions using DOI/CrossRef, providing context for when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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