A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceAutomatically enriches BibTeX citations with missing metadata (DOI, venue, etc.) from arXiv, DBLP, and CrossRef via an MCP server for AI assistants.
2
MIT
cite-mcp
by ndchikin
CiteAssist MCP サーバー
CiteAsとGoogle ScholarからBibTeX形式の引用データを提供するモデルコンテキストプロトコルサーバーです。引用検索機能をアプリケーションに直接統合することで、研究ワークフローを強化します。
コンポーネント
ツール
get_citeas_data- CiteAsから指定されたリソースのBibTeX形式の引用を取得します。resource（文字列、必須）: DOI、URL、キーワード
get_scholar_data- Google ScholarからBibTeX形式の引用を取得するquery(文字列、必須): 検索クエリresults（整数、オプション）：結果の数（デフォルト：2）
Related MCP server: BibTeX MCP Server
クイックスタート
インストール
クロードデスクトップ
MacOSの場合: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows の場合: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
開発/非公開サーバー構成:
"mcpServers": {
"reference-mcp": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"/path/to/project/dir",
"run",
"reference-mcp"
]
}
}公開サーバーの構成:
"mcpServers": {
"reference-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"reference-mcp"
]
}
}Smithery経由でインストール
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の reference-mcp を自動的にインストールするには:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @ndchikin/reference-mcp --client claude発達
建築と出版
配布用のパッケージを準備するには:
依存関係を同期し、ロックファイルを更新します。
uv syncパッケージディストリビューションをビルドします。
uv buildこれにより、 dist/ディレクトリにソースとホイールのディストリビューションが作成されます。
PyPI に公開:
uv publish注: 環境変数またはコマンド フラグを使用して PyPI 資格情報を設定する必要があります。
トークン:
--tokenまたはUV_PUBLISH_TOKENまたはユーザー名/パスワード:
--username/UV_PUBLISH_USERNAMEおよび--password/UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD
デバッグ
MCPサーバーはstdio経由で実行されるため、デバッグが困難になる場合があります。最適なデバッグ環境を実現するには、 MCP Inspectorの使用を強くお勧めします。
次のコマンドを使用して、 npm経由で MCP Inspector を起動できます。
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /path/to/project/dir run reference-mcp起動すると、ブラウザでアクセスしてデバッグを開始できる URL がインスペクタに表示されます。
Available Tools
2 toolsget_citeas_dataC
Retrieve BibTeX-formatted citation for the specified resource (e.g., DOI, URL, keyword) from the CiteAs
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | Yes |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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.
get_scholar_dataC
Retrieve results BibTeX-formatted citations for publications matching the query from the Google Scholar
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| results | No |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
get_citeas_data - First observed
get_scholar_data
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
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.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Federated search of books and papers, BibTeX/RIS citations, open-access retrieval and reading.
Search DataCite datasets and software, fetch DOI metadata, trace relations, format citations.
611Google Scholar search results, citation counts and citation export formats, as structured JSON.
Search papers, format citations in 60 styles, and verify bibliographies against scholarly sources.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceSearches academic references from arXiv, DBLP, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex concurrently and generates BibTeX citations.411MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to access academic citations, fetch metadata, and generate BibTeX entries directly from Google Scholar via MCP tools.1141 PyPI1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceCLI and MCP server for fetching multiple BibTeX options from Google Scholar's visible citation export flow.114 npm1MIT