ScientificFigureLibrary
Related Servers
Alternatives to ScientificFigureLibrary
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for AI-assisted research: paper ingestion, semantic search, citation graph traversal, cross-domain knowledge synthesis, and workflow automation.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for searching research grants across NSF (US), ERC (EU), and KRF/NRF (Korea) via a unified interface. NIH excluded—covered by existing connectors.37 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceComprehensive MCP server for academic research workflows, enabling paper searching across multiple sources, manuscript processing with citation placeholders, search caching, and citation export.11MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA unified MCP server for academic paper discovery, citation exploration, and research intelligence workflows over multiple scientific knowledge sources.71MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceMCP server for PubMed search and literature summarization52MIT
- AlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that integrates a 1200-paper RAG database with six tools to support research workflows across stages like hypothesis, experiment, statistics, and writing. It routes requests to specialized skills and real-time frontier searches to provide evidence-grounded research mentoring.6Apache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 56 tools
The plan_/apply_ pairs are distinct in intent, but the multiple preview and confirm variants (preview, preiew_exact, preview_exact_headless, preview_working_revision, confirm_selection, confirm_selection_headless) can easily be confused. Several plan tools also share the exact same generic description, leaving the tool name to carry the full disambiguation burden.
The figure_library_ prefix plus the consistent plan_/apply_ pairing creates a strong naming pattern. A few noun-headed names like template_history, source_status, and github_auth_status, plus bare verbs like open and describe, deviate slightly from strict verb_noun naming but not enough to mislead.
With 56 tools, the surface is extremely large. The many plan/apply pairs and App-only/headless variants roughly double the number of operations, making the server far heavier and harder to navigate than is appropriate even for a complex scientific figure workflow.
The core lifecycle is well represented: binding, search, working revisions, review gates, publishing, restoring, exporting, and GitHub/provider integrations. Notable gaps remain, however: there is no clear unpublish/retract operation for a Published release and no agent-facing way to author or modify review findings.