Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NASA ADS MCP Server

NASA ADS MCP Server

by prtc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get paper metrics

get_paper_metrics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves citation counts, reads, and impact indicators for specific papers by bibcode, DOI, or arXiv ID, enabling tracking of a paper's impact over time.

Instructions

Get detailed metrics for specific papers including citation count, reads, and impact indicators. Accepts bibcodes, DOIs and arXiv IDs. Useful for tracking paper impact over time.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bibcodesYesBibcodes (e.g. '2005A&A...443..735C'), DOIs or arXiv IDs (e.g. 'arXiv:1404.3243'). Earlier bibcodes (arXiv preprint, MNRAS '.tmp.') also work.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.8.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / bibcodes / description
      Previous value: -"List of ADS bibcodes (e.g., ['2019ApJ...878...98S'])"New value: +"Bibcodes (e.g. '2005A&A...443..735C'), DOIs or arXiv IDs (e.g. 'arXiv:1404.3243'). Earlier bibcodes (arXiv preprint, MNRAS '.tmp.') also work."
    • addedInput schema / properties / bibcodes / title
      Added value: +"Bibcodes"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"get_paper_metricsArguments"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / bibcodes / minItems
      Added value: +1
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a light behavioral note about impact tracking over time — no rate limits, pagination, or freshness/latency information that would matter for an open-world lookup.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return content. The final sentence is mildly redundant with the first but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

With only one required parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a category level (citations, reads, impact indicators), which substitutes for a missing output schema. It could be more explicit about whether historical/time-series values are returned versus a single snapshot.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already documents bibcodes, DOIs, arXiv IDs and legacy '.tmp.' forms. The description repeats "Accepts bibcodes, DOIs and arXiv IDs" without adding new format or batching semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("get detailed metrics for specific papers") plus the metric categories returned (citation count, reads, impact indicators), which distinguishes it from get_paper_details and get_author_metrics. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Useful for tracking paper impact over time" implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points the agent to get_paper_details or get_author_metrics for related needs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools