Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
renyumeng1

mcp-scholar

by renyumeng1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

scholar_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Google Scholar by keywords and return paper abstracts, with options to filter by publication year, sort by relevance, citations, date, or title, and set the result count.

Instructions

搜索谷歌学术并返回论文摘要

Args:
    keywords: 搜索关键词
    count: 返回结果数量，默认为5
    fuzzy_search: 是否使用模糊搜索，默认为False
    sort_by: 排序方式，可选值:
        - "relevance": 按相关性排序（默认）
        - "citations": 按引用量排序
        - "date": 按发表日期排序（新到旧）
        - "title": 按标题字母顺序排序
    year_start: 开始年份，可选
    year_end: 结束年份，可选

Returns:
    Dict: 包含论文列表的字典

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
sort_byNorelevance
keywordsYes
year_endNo
year_startNo
fuzzy_searchNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "scholar_searchOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail through sort semantics (relevance/citations/date/title) and the year-range scoping behavior. It is slightly inconsistent about output, saying it returns paper abstracts in the headline but a dict of papers in the Returns block, which leaves the result shape a bit ambiguous despite the output schema.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a structured Args/Returns block that is easy to scan. The parameter enumeration is somewhat redundant in places (restating defaults already in the schema), but nothing is bloated or off-topic.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be fully explained, and the parameter coverage is thorough. What is missing for a search tool in a crowded sibling set is any routing context explaining when this tool is the right choice over the other search and enrichment tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it documents all six parameters, supplies defaults (count=5, fuzzy_search=False, relevance), and enumerates the four sort_by values with their meanings. The only gaps are that fuzzy_search behavior is not explained and year_start/year_end merely say 'optional'.

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 lead sentence names a specific verb and resource (search Google Scholar, return paper abstracts) and maps directly to the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish the tool from close siblings like search_papers, adaptive_search, or paper_references, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which search entry point to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_papers, adaptive_search, or verify_bibtex. The parameter list is documented, but no use-case conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated anywhere in the description.

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