Skip to main content
Glama
retospect

acatome-quest-mcp

by retospect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to acatome-quest-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • scipdf-mcp

      gjjisadog
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server for downloading academic papers from DOI or title, resolving references, and generating citations. Supports batch downloads, multiple mirrors, and optional Unpaywall integration.
      11
      2
      MIT

    • OpenPapers MCP

      Kaago
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A local MCP server for searching scientific papers, retrieving metadata and abstracts, and legally downloading Open Access PDFs via OpenAlex, CrossRef, and Unpaywall APIs.
      5
      3
      MIT

    • scholar-toolkit-mcp

      czwziy
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Comprehensive MCP server for academic research workflows, enabling paper searching across multiple sources, manuscript processing with citation placeholders, search caching, and citation export.
      11
      MIT

    • Paper Download MCP Server

      Oxidane-bot
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server for downloading academic papers from multiple sources using intelligent routing and year-aware priority selection. It enables users to retrieve metadata and download single or batch PDFs by DOI or URL.
      3
      2
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: status for reading, submit for creating, submit_file for attaching PDFs, and update for modifying requests. No overlap exists, and descriptions are detailed enough to prevent confusion.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Names are lowercase and follow a simple pattern: three verbs (status, submit, update) and one compound verb_noun (submit_file). While not perfectly uniform, the naming is clear and predictable with minor deviations.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 4 tools covering the core operations (create, read, update, attach file), the count is appropriate for the server's focused scope. It is slightly on the lower side but not insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the main lifecycle of paper requests: submission, status query, file attachment, and various update modes (including cancel). A minor gap is the lack of an explicit delete tool, but cancel effectively serves that purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources