A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server enabling AI agents to search and retrieve scientific papers, citations, and author profiles from Crossref, OpenAlex, and Semantic Scholar with no API keys required.
5
3
MIT
MEK MCP
by wlagyorgy
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MEK MCPsearch for works by Petőfi"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MEK MCP
Python MCP szerver a Magyar Elektronikus Könyvtár keresőinek eléréséhez agentic eszközök számára.
Dokumentáció
Related MCP server: mcp-openalex
MCP toolok
Tool | Leírás |
| Egyszerű metaadat-keresés (szerző, cím, téma, MEK ID) |
| Teljes szöveg keresés HTML/PDF dokumentumokban |
| Összetett keresés — max. 5 mezősor, AND/OR/NOT (Playwright scraping) |
| Elérhető mező-aliasok és fulltext témakörök |
Találati limitek
Keresés | Default | Lapozás |
Egyszerű / fulltext |
|
|
Összetett |
| Nincs — a MEK egy listában adja vissza az összes találatot |
Minden válasz tartalmazza a total_hits értéket (teljes találatszám) és a documents szeletet (amit az LLM kap).
Telepítés
python -m venv .venv
.venv\Scripts\activate
pip install -e ".[dev]"
playwright install chromiumAz összetett kereséshez Playwright + Chromium szükséges (headless böngésző scraping a detailed oldalhoz).
Tesztelés
pytest -m "not network" # offline tesztek
pytest -m network # élő MEK hálózati tesztekCursor MCP konfiguráció
A projekt tartalmazza: .cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"mek": {
"command": "${workspaceFolder}/.venv/Scripts/python.exe",
"args": ["-m", "mek_mcp.server"],
"cwd": "${workspaceFolder}"
}
}
}Előfeltétel: pip install -e ".[dev]" a .venv-ben. Cursorban: Settings → MCP → a mek szerver engedélyezése.
Render deploy (Streamable HTTP)
Docker (ajánlott)
docker build -t mek-mcp .
docker run --rm -p 10000:10000 -e MCP_TRANSPORT=streamable-http -e HOST=0.0.0.0 mek-mcpHealth check: http://localhost:10000/health
MCP végpont: http://localhost:10000/mcp
Render Web Service
Push a repót GitHubra
Render Dashboard → New → Blueprint → válaszd a
render.yaml-t
(vagy New → Web Service → Docker runtime,Dockerfileútvonal)A
PORTváltozót a Render automatikusan beállítja
Változó | Érték |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Start command (Dockerfile-ből automatikus): python -m mek_mcp.server
Health check: GET /health
MCP végpont (alapértelmezés):
Streamable HTTP:
https://<service>.onrender.com/mcp
Legacy SSE (opcionális, MCP_TRANSPORT=sse):
SSE stream:
https://<service>.onrender.com/sseÜzenetek:
https://<service>.onrender.com/messages/
A Playwright Chromium a Docker image része (mcr.microsoft.com/playwright/python).
Fejlesztés: űrlap-paraméterek feltárása
python scripts/discover_forms.py --probeA riport: discovery/output/forms_report.json
Licenc
A MEK tartalmára az OSZK felhasználási feltételei vonatkoznak. Ez a projekt nem hivatalos OSZK/MEK termék.
Available Tools
4 toolsmek_list_search_fieldsA
List available field names for mek_search_advanced and fulltext topic filters.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation with no side effects. While it doesn't mention authentication or static/dynamic nature, the simplicity of the tool makes implicit transparency adequate.
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?
Single sentence, direct, front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant words or unnecessary details.
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?
For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists and for which tools. Minor lack of detail on output or authentication, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. Description doesn't need to add parameter info, and the schema coverage is complete by default.
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?
Description clearly specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'available field names', and explicitly states the context of use for 'mek_search_advanced and fulltext topic filters', distinguishing it from sibling search tools.
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?
Description implies usage before mek_search_advanced or mek_search_fulltext to know available fields, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion of mek_search_simple. However, context is clear enough for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mek_search_advancedA
Advanced MEK bibliographic search with up to 5 field-specific criteria rows.
Each row is a field + query pair. Rows are combined with AND/OR/NOT operators (operator between rows 1-2, operator2 between 2-3, etc.). MEK returns all hits in one list; max_results only limits how many documents are returned.
Args: query: Search term for row 1. field: Row 1 field alias or raw MEK value (see mek_list_search_fields). field2: Optional row 2 field. query2: Optional row 2 search term. field3, query3: Optional row 3. field4, query4: Optional row 4. field5, query5: Optional row 5. operator: Combine rows 1 and 2: "and", "or", or "not". operator2: Combine rows 2 and 3. operator3: Combine rows 3 and 4. operator4: Combine rows 4 and 5. sort_by: Sort results by "title", "author", "date", or "id". accent_insensitive: Search without Hungarian accents when True. include_processing: Include in-processing documents when True. max_results: Maximum documents returned (MEK has no server-side paging).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | author | |
| query | Yes | ||
| field2 | No | ||
| field3 | No | ||
| field4 | No | ||
| field5 | No | ||
| query2 | No | ||
| query3 | No | ||
| query4 | No | ||
| query5 | No | ||
| sort_by | No | author | |
| operator | No | and | |
| operator2 | No | and | |
| operator3 | No | and | |
| operator4 | No | and | |
| max_results | No | ||
| accent_insensitive | No | ||
| include_processing | No |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: no server-side paging (MEK returns all hits, max_results only limits return), operator handling, and options like accent_insensitive and include_processing. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the search context implies non-destructive usage.
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 moderately long but well-structured with an overview paragraph followed by a bullet-like Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args list 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (18), no output schema, and no annotations, the description comprehensively explains the tool's logic, parameters, and constraints. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but for a search tool, the coverage is strong.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 explanations for all 18 parameters, including the multi-row structure, operator values ('and', 'or', 'not'), and the purpose of each field. However, it could clarify the exact format of field values (alias vs raw MEK) beyond referencing mek_list_search_fields.
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 'Advanced MEK bibliographic search with up to 5 field-specific criteria rows.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('MEK bibliographic'), and distinguishes itself from siblings (mek_search_simple, mek_search_fulltext) by emphasizing the multi-row, operator-based advanced nature.
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?
The description explains the row-and-operator logic and refers to mek_list_search_fields for field values. It implicitly indicates this is for complex queries via the name 'advanced', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus simpler alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mek_search_fulltextA
Search inside MEK document full text (HTML and PDF).
Args: query: Words or phrase to find in document bodies. Use quotes for exact phrases. broadtopic: Optional collection filter: "", "science", "technical", "social", "humanities", "reference", or the full Hungarian topic string. page_size: Results per page (10, 50, or 100). page: Page number (1-based).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| broadtopic | No |
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or pagination defaults beyond parameter defaults.
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?
Front-loaded purpose, then concise Args section. Every sentence adds value, though Python docstring format slightly verbose.
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?
Adequate for a search tool with 4 parameters. Lacks return value description (snippets, total results) but output schema absent and not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: query syntax (exact phrase with quotes), broadtopic filter values, exact page_size options, and page numbering. Compensates well.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'MEK document full text (HTML and PDF)'. Distinguishes from siblings like mek_search_simple by specifying full-text search.
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?
Implies usage for full-text search but no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings (e.g., simple/advanced search or field list). Agent must infer from names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mek_search_simpleA
Search MEK bibliographic metadata (simple search).
All provided fields are combined with AND logic. Supports wildcards with *. At least one of creator, title, subject, or mek_id must be provided.
Args: creator: Author, editor, or translator name (e.g. "Ady", "Petőfi"). title: Book title or part of title. subject: Theme, keyword, or topic. mek_id: MEK document ID number. page_size: Results per page (10, 50, or 100). page: Page number (1-based).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| mek_id | No | ||
| creator | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| page_size | No |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions AND logic and wildcards, but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. No redundant information, and all sentences are necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter usage but lacks information about the output format or structure (no output schema). Pagination behavior is partially described but total results or maximum are not mentioned. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is provided.
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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides full parameter details: examples for creator, clarification that title can be partial, page_size allowed values (10,50,100), and page being 1-based. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 it searches MEK bibliographic metadata, calling it 'simple search', which implies basic functionality. It lists the supported fields, but does not contrast with sibling tools like mek_search_advanced or mek_search_fulltext, limiting differentiation.
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?
The description explains that fields are combined with AND logic, wildcards are supported, and at least one of the main four fields must be provided. However, it does not specify when to use simple search versus the other search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
mek_list_search_fields - First observed
mek_search_advanced - First observed
mek_search_fulltext - First observed
mek_search_simple
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing search fields, advanced multi-field search, fulltext search, and simple search. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'mek_' prefix and verb+modifier structure (list, search_advanced, search_fulltext, search_simple), making it predictable.
Tool Count4/5
With 4 tools, the set is slightly on the lower end but well-scoped for a search-focused server. Each tool is essential, and the count does not feel excessive or insufficient.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers multiple search modes and field listing, but lacks a direct tool to retrieve a specific document by ID or list all documents, which are notable gaps for a bibliographic library server.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessSyncing
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Agentic search over your Dewey document collections from any MCP-compatible client.
MCP server for Russian books search, details, and recommendation candidates.
Search engine for AI agents to find MCP servers, A2A agents, and skills on their own.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for the OpenAlex scholarly database, providing AI agents with tools to search and retrieve academic works, authors, and institutions via natural language queries.8MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables searching the Hungarian Electronic Library (MEK) for books, authors, subjects, and full-text via MCP tools and REST API, with accent-insensitive fallback and controlled vocabulary browsing.5-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that enables searching and retrieving Czech university theses from theses.cz, including full-text search, metadata, and direct PDF downloads with optional cookie-based authentication.3MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/wlagyorgy/mcp-server-mek'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server