Scholar MCP Server

get_scihub_link_tool

Resolve a paywalled DOI to a free direct PDF link using Sci-Hub. Access scientific papers behind strict paywalls.

Instructions

Attempts to resolve a strict paywalled DOI to a free direct PDF link using Sci-Hub.

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": "get_scihub_link_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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'attempts' which hints at possible failure, but does not disclose failure behavior, availability restrictions, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given a single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action but misses failure behavior and edge cases (e.g., invalid DOI). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'doi' parameter. The description only repeats the term DOI without adding format, validation, or context 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 'resolve', the resource 'DOI to PDF link', and the method 'using Sci-Hub'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_unpaywall_link_tool by specifying the source.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for paywalled DOIs but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like get_unpaywall_link_tool.

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