Skip to main content
Glama
ndchikin

cite-mcp

by ndchikin
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_citeas_data retrieves a citation for a specific resource (DOI, URL, keyword), while get_scholar_data searches for multiple publications matching a query. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_citeas_data and get_scholar_data), using the same verb 'get' and a descriptive noun indicating the data source. The naming is predictable and uniform throughout the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a citation management domain. While the tools cover basic retrieval from two sources, there are no operations for managing citations (e.g., save, update, delete) or handling metadata, which limits functionality for typical agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for citation management. It only provides retrieval from two sources, lacking essential operations like creating, updating, deleting, or organizing citations. There are no tools for formatting, exporting, or integrating with reference managers, leaving significant gaps in the domain coverage.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details beyond 'BibTeX-formatted'.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and parameter usage. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could be slightly more structured with separate usage guidance.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns structured citation data. It doesn't explain what happens with invalid inputs, the format of returned BibTeX, or how this differs from the sibling tool's functionality.

    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?

    The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the 'resource' parameter can be a DOI, URL, or keyword, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides adequate but not comprehensive semantic information.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'BibTeX-formatted citation', specifying it's from the CiteAs service. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_scholar_data' by focusing on citation formatting rather than scholarly data, though the distinction could be more explicit.

    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 minimal guidance by mentioning the resource parameter can be a DOI, URL, or keyword, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_scholar_data'. It lacks context on alternatives or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the retrieval action and output format but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if no results are found. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

    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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of querying an external service like Google Scholar, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details such as response format beyond 'BibTeX-formatted', error cases, or usage constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

    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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantics by explaining that 'query' matches publications and 'results' retrieves citations, but it doesn't specify query syntax, result limits, or default behavior beyond the schema's default value. It partially compensates but not fully.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('BibTeX-formatted citations for publications'), specifying the format and source (Google Scholar). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_citeas_data', but the purpose is well-defined and not tautological.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_citeas_data', nor any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

reference-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

reference-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ndchikin/reference-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server