citeguard
Related Servers
Alternatives to citeguard
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceVerifies citations in reference lists by checking DOIs against public registries to catch AI-hallucinated or mismatched citations.MIT

CiteStamp MCP serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceGround citations before your agent emits them by checking references against public scholarly registries and flagging hallucinated or retracted ones.MIT- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables verifying citations in reference lists and BibTeX by detecting fabricated or mismatched references and retractions, and returning corrected BibTeX.31MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides MCP tools to check reference lists for retracted or problematic citations, retrieve nuanced editorial statuses with evidence, and monitor institutions for newly flagged papers using open data from OpenAlex, Retraction Watch, and Crossref.327 PyPIMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to verify manuscript references against public scholarly records, checking that cited works exist, match their citations, and have not been retracted or flagged. It also lets an agent gather the best source passages for each citing sentence and record its own claim-support verdicts back into the report.4MIT
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenancePrevents citation hallucination by verifying academic citations against CrossRef's database of 150+ million publications before they can be mentioned, ensuring every citation includes a valid DOI.318MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
check_citations (bulk scan of text) and check_citation (single DOI) have overlapping purposes, and the near-identical singular/plural names invite misselection. However, each description explicitly cross-references the other with 'use X instead' guidance, so an agent can reliably choose the right one.
Both tools use consistent snake_case with a clear verb_noun shape, and the singular/plural convention neatly signals single vs. bulk behavior. The only downside is that the two names differ by a single character, which is a mild collision risk.
Two tools is on the thin side, but the domain (checking retraction status of DOIs) is genuinely narrow and the single/bulk split is the one meaningful axis of variation. Nothing feels gratuitous, though a third tool would be hard to justify.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: check one DOI, check many DOIs in a block of text, with defined verdicts and error handling. A minor gap is the absence of any way to resolve a citation lacking a DOI (e.g. by title/author) into a checkable identifier.