Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DOI Citation Verifier

DOI Citation Verifier

by tfscharff
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

verifyCitation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies academic citations before you mention them by checking multiple databases and confirming a valid DOI, preventing hallucinated references.

Instructions

CRITICAL: Use this to verify ANY academic citation before mentioning it. Checks multiple databases (CrossRef, OpenAlex, PubMed, zbMATH, ERIC, HAL, INSPIRE-HEP, Semantic Scholar) if a paper exists. Only papers with a DOI count as verified; every verified result includes a doiUrl.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verifyCitation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiNoDOI if known
yearNoPublication year
titleNoPaper title (partial matches accepted)
authorsNoAuthor names (last names sufficient)
journalNoJournal name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv7.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it lists the databases checked, defines verification as requiring a DOI, and notes that verified results include a doiUrl.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the critical usage instruction, followed by the database scope and verification criterion. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only annotations and fully described schema, the description covers the core behavior an agent needs: what the tool checks, how verification is determined, and one guaranteed output field. It stops short of explaining result shape for failed or ambiguous matches, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the importance of DOI for verification but does not add syntax or usage guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 a specific verb and resource: verify academic citations by checking whether a paper exists across named databases. It is readily distinguishable from a generic search tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as batchVerifyCitations or findVerifiedPapers.

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 gives clear usage context: use this before mentioning any academic citation. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to the sibling tools for batch verification or discovery, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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