Skip to main content
Glama

diagnose_institutional_access

Diagnose why institutional fulltext access fails or succeeds by testing direct, EZproxy, and OpenURL paths for a given DOI.

Instructions

Diagnose why institutional fulltext access succeeds or fails for an article.

Runs up to three probes and reports each path's outcome:

  1. Direct fetch (Phase 1, IP-aware) — follows https://doi.org/<doi> and classifies whether the publisher served fulltext, a paywall, or a login page. Works automatically when your network IP is on the publisher's institutional allow-list (campus / VPN).

  2. EZproxy fetch (Phase 2, BYO-cookie) — rewrites the publisher hostname to your library's EZproxy host and replays your exported browser session cookie. Configured via env vars:

    • EZPROXY_HOST (e.g. ezproxy.lib.ntu.edu.tw)

    • EZPROXY_COOKIE_FILE (path to browser-exported cookies.json)

    • EZPROXY_ENABLED=1

  3. OpenURL handoff — generated for you to open manually in a browser when the automated paths fail.

Args: pmid: PubMed ID (used to enrich the OpenURL). doi: DOI (required for the direct + EZproxy probes). try_direct: Run the Phase 1 direct probe (default True). try_ezproxy: Run the Phase 2 EZproxy probe (default True).

Returns: Markdown report listing every probe's status, classification, and advice on the next action to take.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pmidNo
doiNo
try_directNo
try_ezproxyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains each probe's behavior, including IP-awareness, cookie requirements, and environment variables. It does not mention side effects, but as a diagnostic tool, it is largely read-only.

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 description is well-structured with numbered probes and bullet points for environment variables. It is appropriately detailed for the complexity, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the availability of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (Markdown report with status, classification, advice). All four parameters are explained, and the three probes cover the main functionality. The description is complete for a diagnostic tool with no nested objects.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed meaning for each parameter (pmid for OpenURL enrichment, doi as required for probes, try_direct/try_ezproxy with defaults and purpose), adding semantic constraints beyond the schema.

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 description clearly states it diagnoses institutional fulltext access success/failure, with a specific verb and resource. It lists three probes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'test_institutional_access' by focusing on multi-probe diagnosis.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (troubleshooting access) and describes each probe's conditions, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'test_institutional_access' or state when not to use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/u9401066/pubmed-search-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server