Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BioCite-MCP

BioCite-MCP

by muslus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

resolve_citation

Convert a DOI into a formatted citation string in APA or Nature style.

Instructions

Convert a known DOI into a formatted, publication-ready citation string.

Args: doi: A valid DOI string (e.g., 10.1093/jxb/erx393) style: Citation style: "apa" or "nature"

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": "resolve_citation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiYes
styleNoapa

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses the core action (converting DOI to string) and style options, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The tool is simple and read-only, so lacking detail is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, then a clear Args section. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema (returning a citation string), the description covers inputs and implicitly outputs. It explains style defaults and provides an example DOI. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a straightforward conversion tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It adds meaningful context: 'doi' is a valid DOI with an example, 'style' options are APA or Nature with default. This goes beyond the schema's titles.

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 uses a specific verb 'Convert' and identifies the resource 'known DOI' and output 'formatted, publication-ready citation string'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'export_bibtex' or 'check_duplicate_citations'.

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 explicitly states when to use: for converting DOIs to citations. It mentions style options with defaults. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or direct alternatives to other tools like 'export_bibtex'.

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