Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BioCite-MCP

BioCite-MCP

by muslus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

export_bibtex

Retrieve a BibTeX citation for any paper by submitting its DOI.

Instructions

Retrieve the BibTeX citation for a given DOI.

Args: doi: The DOI of the paper to export.

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": "export_bibtex"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and omits important details like auth requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid DOI), or rate limits. No side effects are mentioned but the tool is read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (two sentences), but it is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be more informative without increasing length significantly, such as noting output format or usage notes.

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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the input (DOI) and output (BibTeX citation). However, it lacks context about error conditions and is too brief for a tool with sibling tools that may overlap.

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, so the description must add meaning. It adds that 'doi' is 'The DOI of the paper to export', which is helpful but minimal. No format, validation, or examples are provided.

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 retrieves a BibTeX citation for a given DOI, using the verb 'Retrieve' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'resolve_citation' by focusing specifically on BibTeX export.

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?

The description provides basic information but no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'resolve_citation' or 'push_to_zotero'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools