scholar-mcp

Search Standards

search_standards

Read-only

Search technical standards from NIST, IETF, W3C, and ETSI by identifier, title, or free text, optionally filtering to one source body and capping results with a limit.

Instructions

Search technical standards by identifier, title, or free text.

Searches NIST, IETF, W3C, and ETSI. Use body to restrict to one source body.

A cold catalogue makes this slow: the first call after a fresh install or a cleared cache downloads and parses each body's index, which runs well past the soft deadline. Such a call returns a job handle to poll with get_job_result rather than the result itself.

Every answer states its own completeness. partial is always present, and when it is true failed_bodies names each source that did not answer and warning describes it. A partial answer is deliberately not an error: the results that did arrive are usable, and the named bodies may still hold matches worth asking for again.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Optional filter: ``NIST``, ``IETF``, ``W3C`` or ``ETSI``.
`limit`	No	Maximum results (max 50).
`query`	Yes	Identifier, title, or free text.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.1.1Nov 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body / description

Previous value: -"Optional filter — \"NIST\", \"IETF\", \"W3C\", or \"ETSI\"."New value: +"Optional filter: ``NIST``, ``IETF``, ``W3C`` or ``ETSI``."

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses that a cold catalogue causes the first call to exceed a soft deadline and return a job handle for ``get_job_result`` instead of results. It also documents the result contract (``partial`` always present, ``failed_bodies`` and ``warning`` when true) and explains why partial is intentionally not an error. This is exactly the kind of latency and response-shape context the schema cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then source scoping, then cold-start behaviour, then result semantics, in four tight paragraphs. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information and none restates the schema verbatim for filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a federated search tool with an output schema already describing return fields, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: source coverage, the single-source filter, cold-cache latency and job-handle fallback, and how to interpret partial results. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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 all three parameters (query, body, limit) are already documented with their allowed values and defaults. The description restates the body filter and the identifier/title/free-text query modes but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (search) plus resource (technical standards) and enumerates the matching modes (identifier, title, free text), and the second sentence names the covered corpora (NIST, IETF, W3C, ETSI). That is enough for an agent to distinguish this discovery tool from the fetch/resolve siblings like get_standard or resolve_standard_identifier.

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 description gives operational guidance on when to constrain via ``body`` and, importantly, tells the agent to treat a partial answer as usable and possibly worth re-asking rather than as a failure. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as resolve_standard_identifier or get_standard, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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