mendeley-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: adding documents, looking up by DOI, getting document details, listing documents, listing folders, searching the catalog, and searching the library. The descriptions reinforce these distinctions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'mendeley_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., mendeley_add_document, mendeley_list_folders). This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and usability across the toolset.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing a Mendeley library, covering key operations like CRUD for documents, folder management, and search functionalities. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong coverage for core Mendeley workflows, including document addition, retrieval, listing, and searching. A minor gap exists in lacking update and delete operations for documents or folders, which agents might need to work around, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 14, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.
View related servers

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 it 'Get detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format beyond 'JSON object with full document metadata'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but with no annotations and minimal behavioral details, it falls short of fully guiding the agent, especially for usage decisions among siblings.
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 description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'document_id: The Mendeley document ID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Document Id'. However, it doesn't provide format examples or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
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 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific document', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mendeley_get_by_doi' or 'mendeley_search_library', which might also retrieve document information through different mechanisms.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, nor does it compare with siblings such as 'mendeley_get_by_doi' for DOI-based retrieval or 'mendeley_search_library' for broader searches, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('JSON array of folders with their IDs and names'), which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the action and resource, the second describes the return format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return information into the main purpose statement.
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 simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return format adequately. However, for a library management tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication context or any folder-specific constraints. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe returns, but behavioral aspects remain under-specified.
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?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders/collections in your Mendeley library'). It distinguishes the resource type from sibling tools that handle documents/catalog searches, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'mendeley_list_documents' beyond the resource name.
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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to other listing/searching tools, or any contextual constraints for folder listing operations.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool looks up a paper by DOI and returns JSON metadata, but it doesn't mention potential behaviors like error handling (e.g., if DOI is invalid), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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) and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error cases or usage context, which are important for a lookup tool with no annotations. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'doi' parameter is 'The DOI of the paper' and provides an example ('10.1038/nature12373'), clarifying the format and purpose. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this compensates well, though it could be more detailed.
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 as 'Look up a paper by its DOI in the Mendeley catalog,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mendeley_get_document' or 'mendeley_search_catalog,' which might also retrieve paper information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it's for looking up papers by DOI, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mendeley_search_catalog' or 'mendeley_get_document.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a creation operation ('Add a new document'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether duplicates are allowed, what happens on failure, or how the document integrates with the library structure. The description mentions the return format but lacks operational context.
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 with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, making it easy to scan and understand the tool's function quickly.
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 complexity (7 parameters, creation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context that would be crucial for a mutation tool with no annotations. The description doesn't address error conditions, permissions, or integration with the broader Mendeley ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. For all 7 parameters, it adds meaningful context: clarifying that 'title' is required, explaining 'doc_type' with examples, detailing the structure of 'authors' dicts, and specifying what 'identifiers' can contain. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Add a new document') and target resource ('to your Mendeley library'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve, list, or search documents rather than create them. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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 like 'mendeley_search_catalog' for finding existing documents or 'mendeley_list_documents' for viewing the library. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for adding documents versus using other tools.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope ('searches title, authors, abstract, notes') and return format ('JSON array of matching documents with metadata'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'search' but not confirmed). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet-point-like sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' that are easy to parse. Each sentence adds value, such as detailing the search scope and parameter constraints, making it front-loaded and efficient for an AI agent.
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's moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, addressing key aspects. However, it lacks behavioral details like authentication needs or error cases, which would be beneficial for a tool with no annotations. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but some gaps remain.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' searches across multiple fields (title, authors, abstract, notes) and specifies defaults and limits for 'limit' (default: 20, max: 100). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear usage context for both parameters. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, the description effectively enhances parameter understanding.
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 your Mendeley library for documents.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('Mendeley library'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'mendeley_search_catalog' (which searches the public catalog) and 'mendeley_list_documents' (which lists without querying). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'mendeley_get_by_doi' or 'mendeley_get_document', which also retrieve documents but via specific identifiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the phrase 'Search your Mendeley library for documents,' suggesting it's for finding documents based on content rather than by ID or listing all. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mendeley_search_catalog' (for public catalog) or 'mendeley_list_documents' (for unfiltered listing), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a list operation (implied read-only), includes default values and limits, and specifies the return format. However, it misses behavioral details like pagination, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits that would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes scope, and the bullet points provide essential parameter semantics without redundancy. No wasted words.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job covering parameter meanings and return format. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, for a list operation with filtering/sorting, additional context about result structure or pagination would make it more complete.
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 meaningful context for all 3 parameters: 'folder_id' clarifies it filters results, 'limit' specifies default and max values, and 'sort_by' enumerates valid options. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases.
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 'List' and resource 'documents', specifying scope 'in your library or a specific folder'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mendeley_get_document' (single document) and 'mendeley_search_library' (search vs list), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'mendeley_list_folders' (documents vs folders).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description's scope ('library or a specific folder') and parameter hints, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'mendeley_search_library' for filtered searches or 'mendeley_list_folders' for folder listings. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the scale ('100M+ papers') and return format ('JSON array of catalog entries'), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter documentation, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
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's moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, usage guidance, and parameter semantics, though behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling are missing.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: explaining 'query' as a 'Search query' and providing default/maximum values for 'limit' (default: 20, max: 100). This goes beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain query syntax or format.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Search the global Mendeley catalog') and resource ('100M+ papers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mendeley_search_library' which searches the user's personal library. The phrase 'global Mendeley catalog' versus 'your library' provides clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find papers that may not be in your library.' This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'mendeley_search_library' for searching personal collections.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mendeley-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pallaprolus/mendeley-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pallaprolus/mendeley-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mendeley-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pallaprolus/mendeley-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pallaprolus/mendeley-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/pallaprolus/mendeley-mcp'

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