Scholar MCP Server

get_citations_tool

Retrieve citations or references for a paper by providing its DOI or OpenAlex ID. Choose direction to see either cited references or recent citations.

Instructions

Tracks lineage by retrieving a paper's citations. Provide a DOI (10.xxx) or OpenAlex ID (Wxxx). Set direction="references" to see who this paper cites. Set direction="citations" to see who cited this paper recently.

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": {
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_citations_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper_id`	Yes
`direction`	No		references

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as retrieving citations and tracking lineage, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that or disclose other traits like rate limits or authorization needs.

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 concise, with four short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add necessary details. No superfluous words.

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?

The tool has two parameters, both adequately explained. There is an output schema, so return values are covered. The description could be considered complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it might lack context on the format or size of the citation list.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds full meaning: paper_id accepts a DOI or OpenAlex ID, and direction accepts 'references' or 'citations' with clear explanations. Compensates completely for missing schema 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 it retrieves a paper's citations (verb 'retrieving', resource 'paper's citations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on citation lineage.

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 explicit guidance on how to use it: providing a DOI or OpenAlex ID, and setting direction to 'references' or 'citations'. It explains the purpose of each direction, but does not explicitly mention 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.