mcp-scholaris
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly separate roles: search_papers is for discovery, returning metadata about papers, while fetch_paper retrieves full text for a known identifier. There is no overlap in purpose or output.
Naming Consistency5/5Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_papers and fetch_paper. The naming clearly communicates what each tool does and matches the same style.
Tool Count4/5With only two tools, the server is on the small side, but the two operations form a natural and sufficient pair for a focused scholarly search-and-retrieval tool. Each tool is essential and earns its place.
Completeness5/5For the stated purpose of finding academic papers and retrieving their full text, the pipeline is complete: search returns identifiers and metadata, and fetch consumes those identifiers to return content. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations exist in this read-only domain.
Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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.jsonto 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
- Behavior3/5
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 covers the sources searched, the type of content returned, and general use case. It omits details like result aggregation across sources, defaults, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but those are not critical for a straightforward read-style search.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences deliver scope, return values, and usage without filler. The most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a search tool with no output schema or annotations: it states what is searched, what is returned, and how to use it. Could be stronger by mentioning how results are structured or explicitly routing to fetch_paper, but the core calling context is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the query flexibility already documented in the schema and adds no new meaning for the sources or max_results parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('academic papers') across named sources, and enumerates return fields. The 'search' verb clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'fetch_paper', which implies retrieving a specific paper.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Says explicitly 'Use this to find papers by topic, author, or keyword,' giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with fetch_paper or state when not to use this tool, so exclusion guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the ordered fallback strategy (arXiv, PubMed Central, Unpaywall) and the output form (extracted text from PDF). It does not describe failure behavior when no open-access source has the paper, but the primary behavior is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler: action and inputs come first, followed by source order and return type. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Core behavior and return type are covered, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits what happens when no ID is supplied, when multiple IDs conflict, or when the full text is unavailable. Since all parameters are optional in the schema, the at-least-one-identifier requirement should be clarified. These are clear but non-fatal gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three identifier parameters with examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb, resource, and input types: fetch full text of a paper using DOI, arXiv ID, or PubMed ID. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_papers tool, which would search rather than retrieve full text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Defines a clear trigger condition: use this when you already have a paper identifier and want the full text. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer search_papers, but the identifier-based precondition makes the intended context unambiguous.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/penny4nonsense/mcp-scholaris'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server