A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceUnified scholarly search across 60+ academic sources with citation formatting (CMOS 18, SBL 2, APA 7, Turabian 9) and AI-powered research tools.
MIT
CiteMe
by app.citeme
Server Details
Search papers, format citations in 60 styles, and verify bibliographies against scholarly sources.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_referencesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verify a user-provided bibliography against scholarly sources and return match status, identifiers, and citation issues. Results may be cached for up to six hours and usage may be logged; the bibliography is not published or added to an account.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Raw bibliography text (one reference per line, or a full references section) |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: results may be cached for six hours, usage may be logged, and the input is not published or stored to an account. This complements the readOnly and idempotent hints without contradiction.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and efficiently covers important caveats about caching, logging, and privacy without unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output types, and behavioral caveats well. It lacks explicit return format details, but the overall context is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the parameter 'text' with a clear description, so the tool description adds no additional semantic value for parameters. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool verifies a user-provided bibliography against scholarly sources and returns match status, identifiers, and citation issues. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from siblings like format_citation and search_citations.
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 usage for verifying bibliographies but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are present but not referenced in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
format_citationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Format citation data (title, authors, year, etc.) into a specific citation style. The formatted result may be stored in an operational cache; the tool does not publish content or modify a user account.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | No | DOI identifier | |
| url | No | URL of the source | |
| page | No | Page range (e.g., "123-456") | |
| year | Yes | Publication year | |
| style | No | Citation style | apa |
| title | Yes | Paper/book title | |
| venue | No | Journal or venue name | |
| volume | No | Volume number | |
| authors | Yes | Author names (e.g., ["John Smith", "Jane Doe"]) | |
| publisher | No | Publisher name |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: result may be stored in an operational cache, and it does not publish content or modify user accounts. This goes beyond annotations to clarify side effects.
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?
Two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. All sentences add value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and side effects. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., the formatted citation string), which would be helpful since no output schema is provided. Minor gap prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already documents. It references title, authors, year, etc., but provides no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the action: 'Format citation data... into a specific citation style.' It names the resource (citation data) and the specific transformation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_citations or check_references.
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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate (formatting citation data into a style) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. Context is sufficient to differentiate from siblings without explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_citationsAIdempotentInspect
Search scholarly sources by topic, title, author, DOI, or ISBN and return matching works as formatted citations. Resolved works may be merged into CiteMe's shared scholarly catalog and operational caches; the tool does not publish content or modify a user account.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of citations to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query: topic, title, author name, DOI, or ISBN | |
| style | No | Citation style (e.g., apa, abnt, mla, vancouver, chicago-author-date, ieee) | apa |
| source_type | No | Type of source to search for | auto |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that resolved works may be merged into CiteMe's shared catalog and operational caches, and explicitly states it does not publish content or modify a user account. This is meaningful behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations, which already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core function, and the second efficiently covers side-effect transparency. Every clause earns its place.
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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, searchable fields, output type (formatted citations), and an important side-effect caveat. It does not explain the returned citation structure, but the schema covers parameter defaults and enums, so the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description reinforces query semantics by naming topic/title/author/DOI/ISBN and the output as formatted citations, but it does not add syntax or parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') plus a clear resource ('scholarly sources'), and enumerates query dimensions (topic, title, author, DOI, ISBN) with a concrete result ('return matching works as formatted citations'). This distinguishes it from siblings like format_citation and check_references, which have different primary actions.
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?
Usage is implied through the description: it is for finding scholarly sources and getting formatted citations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like format_citation or check_references, nor does it include exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
3 tool updates
- First observed
check_references - First observed
format_citation - First observed
search_citations
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Academic paper search, scientific literature, citation analysis, arXiv & semantic related-work.
Federated search of books and papers, BibTeX/RIS citations, open-access retrieval and reading.
Search 340M+ academic papers — citation graphs, semantic similarity, and AI literature reviews.
Search Google Scholar for academic papers, citations, and author profiles.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables academic bibliographic search across arXiv, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar with advanced search, citation analysis, and Zotero integration for reference management.2-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceSearches academic references from arXiv, DBLP, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex concurrently and generates BibTeX citations.10MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables searching and downloading academic papers from 14 platforms including arXiv, PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Springer, and Sci-Hub with unified data format and intelligent rate limiting.19295183MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: searching, formatting, and verifying citations. There is no overlap in purpose, and an agent can easily select the right tool for a given task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (check_references, format_citation, search_citations), making them predictable and easy to remember.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well within the typical 3-15 range and each tool serves a necessary function for the server's focused scope of citation handling. No redundancy or excessive count.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the primary workflows of searching, formatting, and verifying references. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool for retrieving a single citation by identifier, but search_citations can cover that need.