Skip to main content
Glama
openags

Paper Search MCP

by openags

search_openaire

Search academic papers from OpenAIRE's European Open Access infrastructure to find relevant research publications using query-based discovery.

Instructions

Search academic papers from OpenAIRE European Open Access infrastructure.

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 `search_openaire` handler in server.py which calls the `openaire_searcher` helper to perform the search.
    async def search_openaire(query: str, max_results: int = 10) -> List[Dict]:
        """Search academic papers from OpenAIRE European Open Access infrastructure.
    
        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(openaire_searcher, query, max_results)
        return papers if papers else []
  • The `OpenAiresearcher.search` method in academic_platforms/openaire.py which performs the actual API requests to OpenAIRE.
    def search(self, query: str, max_results: int = 10, **kwargs) -> List[Paper]:
  • Registration logic where `search_openaire` is called based on the `source` parameter in `server.py`.
    elif source == "openaire":
        task_map[source] = search_openaire(query, max_results_per_source)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'paper metadata in dictionary format' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, pagination, or what specific metadata fields are included. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value: the first establishes purpose, the next two explain parameters, and the last describes the return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (rate limits, error handling) and differentiation from sibling tools. For a search tool among many alternatives, more guidance would be helpful.

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 successfully explains both parameters: 'query' as a search string with an example, and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on 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 searches academic papers from the OpenAIRE infrastructure, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' or 'search_pubmed' beyond mentioning the specific source (OpenAIRE).

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed, search_crossref). The description mentions the source (OpenAIRE European Open Access infrastructure) but doesn't explain what makes this source unique or when it should be preferred over alternatives.

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