scholar-mcp

Get Citations

get_citations

Read-only

Retrieve papers citing a specified paper using a paper identifier. Filter by year, field, and minimum citations, with pagination and background job handling for deep queries.

Instructions

Fetch papers that cite the given paper (forward citations).

Paging deeply to satisfy min_citations can run long; such a call continues in the background and returns a job handle to poll with get_job_result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results (pagination).
`fields`	No	Field set preset for returned paper records.	compact
`offset`	No	Pagination offset.
`year_end`	No	Filter citing papers published up to this year.
`identifier`	Yes	Paper identifier (DOI, S2 ID, ARXIV:, etc.).
`year_start`	No	Filter citing papers published from this year.
`min_citations`	No	Minimum citation count of citing papers. Applied client-side (S2 does not support this filter on the citations endpoint). Papers with unknown citation counts are excluded. Pagination (``offset``/``limit``) is applied to the filtered results. The tool paginates through up to 10 000 upstream results to find qualifying papers.
`fields_of_study`	No	Filter by field of study.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.10.0Sep 8, 2026
- addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```
- removedOutput schema / properties
```
Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
```
- removedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Removed value: -true
```
First observedv1.9.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral context about deep pagination for min_citations, explaining that it can run long and returns a job handle to poll with get_job_result. This goes beyond the annotations and is useful for agents.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately, and the second adds a critical operational caveat. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is quite complete. It covers the primary operation and the non-obvious async behavior for min_citations. It does not describe error handling or rate limits, but these are not essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially with a rich input schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not elaborate on any parameters; all meaning is derived from the input schema. While the schema is thorough (e.g., explaining min_citations client-side behavior), the description adds no additional parameter insight beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Fetch papers') and the resource ('that cite the given paper'), and explicitly labels it as 'forward citations', which distinguishes it from backward-citation tools like get_references. The purpose is unambiguous and the wording is specific.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_references or get_citation_graph. It implies a distinction through 'forward citations' but does not state conditions or exclusions. The background-job note for min_citations gives some operational context but not usage routing.

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