Skip to main content
Glama
openags

Paper Search MCP

by openags

search_dblp

Find academic papers in computer science from the dblp bibliography database using search queries.

Instructions

Search academic papers from dblp computer science bibliography.

Args: query: Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning'). max_results: Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10). Returns: List of paper metadata in dictionary format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
max_resultsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The wrapper function that exposes 'search_dblp' as an MCP tool, invoking the DBLP searcher.
    async def search_dblp(query: str, max_results: int = 10) -> List[Dict]:
        """Search academic papers from dblp computer science bibliography.
    
        Args:
            query: Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning').
            max_results: Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10).
        Returns:
            List of paper metadata in dictionary format.
        """
        papers = await async_search(dblp_searcher, query, max_results)
        return papers if papers else []
  • The core implementation class for searching DBLP, which performs the actual network requests and parsing.
    class DBLPSearcher(PaperSource):
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('List of paper metadata in dictionary format') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific metadata fields are included. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then lists args and returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels could be more integrated. It's efficient without being overly terse.

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's moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics but lacks depth: no behavioral transparency, no usage guidelines vs. siblings, and while it explains parameters, it doesn't fully address the tool's operational context. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'query' is explained as 'Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning')' and 'max_results' as 'Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover advanced query syntax or result limits.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search academic papers from dblp computer science bibliography.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('academic papers'), and identifies the source ('dblp computer science bibliography'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' or 'search_crossref' beyond mentioning the dblp source.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'search_arxiv', 'search_crossref', 'search_papers'), there's no indication of what makes dblp unique or when it should be preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/openags/paper-search-mcp'

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