scholar-mcp

Get References

get_references

Read-only

Retrieves the bibliography of a scholarly paper using its DOI, arXiv ID, or S2 ID. Returns referenced papers with pagination and field controls, and can run as a background job for long queries.

Instructions

Fetch papers referenced by the given paper (backward references).

Should the call 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
`limit`	No	Max results.
`fields`	No	Field set preset for returned paper records.	compact
`offset`	No	Pagination offset.
`identifier`	Yes	Paper identifier (DOI, S2 ID, ARXIV:, etc.).

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important extra transparency about long-running calls continuing in the background and returning a job handle to poll with get_job_result.

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 concise sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the background-job note is relevant and compact.

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 the input schema fully covers parameters, the description is complete enough. It includes the important asynchronous behavior; minor gap is not explaining the field preset options, but the schema already does so.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for identifier, limit, offset, and fields, though the schema describes each parameter adequately.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('papers referenced by the given paper'), and clarifies directionality with 'backward references', which differentiates it from siblings like get_citations.

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?

The 'backward references' phrasing gives clear context for when to use this tool versus the forward-looking get_citations/get_citation_graph siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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