Skip to main content
Glama
u9401066

pubmed-search-mcp

by u9401066
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

find_citing_articles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover papers that cite a given PubMed article to track research impact and find follow-up studies.

Instructions

Find articles that cite a given PubMed article. Uses PubMed Central's citation data to find papers that reference this article.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 📈 FORWARD CITATION SEARCH (Impact Tracking) ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Direction: Source Paper → Papers that cite it (FORWARD in time)

USE CASES: ──────────

  • 🔬 Track research impact: Who built on this work?

  • 📊 Find follow-up studies: What happened after this discovery?

  • 🔄 Identify controversies: Papers that challenge or refute findings

  • 📚 Literature review: Ensure you have the latest developments

COMPLEMENTARY TOOLS: ────────────────────

  • get_article_references(): BACKWARD search (what this paper cited)

  • find_related_articles(): Similar papers (topic-based, not citation-based)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ EXAMPLE: ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Find papers that cite a landmark CRISPR paper

find_citing_articles(pmid="23287718", limit=20) → Returns papers published AFTER 2012 that reference this work

Then analyze citation metrics

get_citation_metrics(pmids="last") → See which citing papers are most influential

Args: pmid: PubMed ID of the source article ("12345678" or "PMID:12345678"). limit: Maximum number of citing articles to return (1-100, default: 10).

Returns: List of citing articles with details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pmidYes
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.7.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / pmid / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / pmid / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • addedInput schema / properties / pmid / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / pmid / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "find_citing_articlesOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.5.16

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the PubMed Central citation data source and the forward-in-time direction, but does not cover rate limits, permissions, or detailed return behavior beyond a generic list. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is useful added context but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded and the description is well organized. However, it is heavily padded with decorative separators, emojis, and repeated headers, and some content is redundant, which hurts conciseness.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, data source, and a basic return description. Since there is no output schema, it could more precisely describe the citing-article fields or pagination behavior, but it is largely complete for a simple read tool.

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 documents both parameters: the pmid format ('12345678' or 'PMID:12345678') and the limit range/default (1-100, default 10). This fully covers the two parameters and adds meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: find articles that cite a given PubMed article, explicitly scoped as a forward citation search. The complementary tools section names get_article_references and find_related_articles and explains how they differ, so an agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit use cases such as tracking research impact, finding follow-up studies, identifying controversies, and literature review. It also names the backward-search and topic-based alternatives, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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