scholar-mcp

Get Paper

get_paper

Read-only

Retrieve full metadata for a single paper using its DOI, arXiv ID, or other identifier. Handles cached results instantly and provides a job handle for background processing.

Instructions

Fetch full metadata for a single paper.

A cached paper answers immediately. Otherwise the record is fetched and enriched; should that run long it continues in the background and returns a job handle to poll with get_job_result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifier`	Yes	Paper identifier — DOI, S2 paper ID, arXiv ID (prefix with ``ARXIV:``), ACM ID (``ACM:``), or PubMed ID (``PMID:``).

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about caching, background processing, and the potential for returning a job handle instead of the paper, which is not covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral nuance (caching/background) is stated succinctly. 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?

The description covers the two possible outcomes (immediate answer or job handle) and references the polling tool. Since an output schema exists, return format details are not needed. It does not mention error handling, but that is not critical given the other coverage.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'identifier' parameter with allowed formats (DOI, S2, arXiv, ACM, PMID). The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter itself; it only refers to 'full metadata' and the caching behavior, which is indirectly related. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch full metadata for a single paper', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from search_papers by specifying 'single paper' but does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_author or get_book, though the resource type makes it distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the behavior when cached vs. not cached, and instructs to poll with get_job_result if a job handle is returned. This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for searching multiple papers) or mention alternatives.

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