Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Sidekick

by io.github.mlava

Audit Bibliography

auditBibliography
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a WHOLE bibliography in one call — the batch counterpart to verifyCitation. Each entry runs the same fabrication check (real, resolvable identifier paired with a title that does NOT match the resolved paper; Topaz et al., Lancet 2026) plus a retraction lookup, and the tool returns a per-entry verdict table and a corpus summary. Use when the user pastes a reference list, a .bib / .ris file, or asks to 'check all these citations at once' / 'audit my bibliography' / 'which of these references are fake or retracted'. Input: EITHER bibliography (raw BibTeX / RIS / CSL-JSON text — format auto-detected) OR claims (an array of pre-parsed {title + identifier} objects), not both. Capped at 25 entries per call; excess is dropped and reported via truncated. checks defaults to ['retraction'] (pass [] to skip); screenWithLlm opt-in per entry (same auth gating as verifyCitation). Returns: { format, entries: [{ index, sourceKey?, status: 'ok'|'error', verdict: 'matched' | 'mismatch' | 'not_found' | 'ambiguous', confidence, matched, mismatches, retraction: { checked, doi, isRetracted, hasCorrections, hasConcern, notices } | null, provenance }], parseErrors: [{ index, error, message }], truncated, summary: { total, matched, mismatch, ambiguous, not_found, errored, retracted } }. Reading the result: index is 1-BASED (entry 1 is the first reference) — do not add 1 again when reporting it. sourceKey is the entry's own key in the source file (BibTeX cite key, RIS ID, CSL-JSON id) and is the reliable way to point a user at the offending reference; it is absent on the claims[] path. entries and parseErrors share one index space, so a given input position appears in exactly one of them — report parseErrors as UNCHECKED, never as clean. summary.total counts verifiable entries only, excluding parseErrors and anything past the cap; summary.retracted is a separate axis from the verdict counts (an entry can be both matched and retracted), so never sum those fields. A non-zero truncated means the audit is incomplete — split the bibliography and call again. Per-entry leniency: one entry that fails to resolve becomes status:'error' without failing the batch. This audits citation IDENTITY (does each identifier resolve to the claimed work, and is it retracted) — it does NOT check whether a source supports the claim it is cited for. Read-only and idempotent. Works anonymously for the non-LLM path; SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) or a paid RapidAPI tier raises rate limits and enables the optional LLM screen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checksNoPer-entry enrichment checks. Defaults to ['retraction'] (flags retracted / corrected / expression-of-concern works via Crossref + Retraction Watch, keyed on each resolved DOI). Pass [] to skip the retraction lookup.
claimsNoPre-parsed citations to audit — an alternative to `bibliography` for agents that already hold structured references. Each needs a `title` plus whatever identifiers the citation carries.
formatNoOverride format auto-detection for `bibliography`.
bibliographyNoRaw bibliography text to parse and audit — BibTeX, RIS, or CSL-JSON. Provide EITHER this or `claims`, not both. Format is auto-detected from the content; override with `format`. Capped at 25 entries per call (excess is dropped and reported via `truncated`).
screenWithLlmNoOpt-in Stage 3 LLM screen applied per entry (same gating as verifyCitation: authenticated first-party key or paid RapidAPI tier). Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoDetected input format ('bibtex' | 'ris' | 'csl-json'), or null for the claims[] path.
entriesNoOne result per verifiable entry: { index, sourceKey?, status: 'ok'|'error', verdict, confidence, matched, mismatches, retraction, _provenance }. `index` is 1-BASED and counts position in the submitted input, so entry 1 is the first reference — do not add 1 again when you report it to a user. `sourceKey` is the entry's own key in the source file (BibTeX cite key, RIS `ID`, or CSL-JSON `id`) and is the reliable way to map a verdict back to the user's bibliography; it is absent on the claims[] path and on formats that carry no key. `status:'error'` means that one entry failed to verify, not that the batch failed. Entries appear in input order.
summaryNoCorpus roll-up: { total, matched, mismatch, ambiguous, not_found, errored, retracted }. `total` counts verifiable entries only, so it excludes `parseErrors` and anything past the cap. `retracted` is a separate axis from the verdict counts, and an entry can be both matched and retracted — never add the fields together.
truncatedNoCount of entries dropped beyond the 25-entry cap. Non-zero means the audit is incomplete — split the bibliography and call again for the rest.
parseErrorsNoEntries that could not be parsed or lacked a title: { index, error, message }. Same 1-based `index` space as `entries`, so the two arrays never collide: a given input position appears in exactly one of them. Report these to the user as unchecked, NOT as clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed16 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / ads / description
      Added value: +"NASA ADS bibcode, e.g. '2019A&A...625A.135L'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / arxiv / description
      Added value: +"arXiv ID, e.g. '2301.00001' or 'arXiv:2301.00001'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / author / description
      Previous value: -"First-author family name as cited."New value: +"First-author family name as cited. Refines the comparison; a disagreement here can downgrade a verdict to 'ambiguous'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / container / description
      Added value: +"Journal or book title as cited. Refinement only, same role as `year`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / doi / description
      Added value: +"DOI as cited, with or without a prefix ('10.1038/nphys1170' or a doi.org URL)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / isbn / description
      Added value: +"ISBN-10 or ISBN-13; hyphens are tolerated."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / issn / description
      Added value: +"ISSN of the containing journal. Identifies a container, not a paper, so it cannot resolve an entry on its own — supply it alongside another identifier."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / pmcid / description
      Added value: +"PubMed Central ID, e.g. 'PMC1234567'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / pmid / description
      Added value: +"PubMed ID, digits only or 'PMID:' prefixed."
    • changedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Title as cited. Required for each claim."New value: +"Title exactly as the citation claims it. Required — the audit compares this against the title of the record the identifier actually resolves to, and that comparison is the fabrication check."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / whoIrisUrl / description
      Added value: +"WHO IRIS publication URL."
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / properties / year / description
      Added value: +"Publication year as cited. Refinement only — it never decides a verdict alone."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / entries / description
      Previous value: -"One result per verifiable entry: { index, sourceKey?, status: 'ok'|'error', verdict, confidence, matched, mismatches, retraction, _provenance }."New value: +"One result per verifiable entry: { index, sourceKey?, status: 'ok'|'error', verdict, confidence, matched, mismatches, retraction, _provenance }. `index` is 1-BASED and counts position in the submitted input, so entry 1 is the first reference — do not add 1 again when you report it to a user. `sourceKey` is the entry's own key in the source file (BibTeX cite key, RIS `ID`, or CSL-JSON `id`) and is the reliable way to map a verdict back to the user's bibliography; it is absent on the claims[] path and on formats that carry no key. `status:'error'` means that one entry failed to verify, not that the batch failed. Entries appear in input order."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / parseErrors / description
      Previous value: -"Entries that could not be parsed or lacked a title: { index, error, message }."New value: +"Entries that could not be parsed or lacked a title: { index, error, message }. Same 1-based `index` space as `entries`, so the two arrays never collide: a given input position appears in exactly one of them. Report these to the user as unchecked, NOT as clean."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / summary / description
      Previous value: -"Corpus roll-up: { total, matched, mismatch, ambiguous, not_found, errored, retracted }."New value: +"Corpus roll-up: { total, matched, mismatch, ambiguous, not_found, errored, retracted }. `total` counts verifiable entries only, so it excludes `parseErrors` and anything past the cap. `retracted` is a separate axis from the verdict counts, and an entry can be both matched and retracted — never add the fields together."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / truncated / description
      Previous value: -"Count of entries dropped beyond the 25-entry cap."New value: +"Count of entries dropped beyond the 25-entry cap. Non-zero means the audit is incomplete — split the bibliography and call again for the rest."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals batch semantics (25 cap, dropped excess reported via truncated), per-entry leniency (one error doesn't fail the batch), index space semantics (entries and parseErrors share one index space), 1-based indexing, how to interpret summary fields, and the fact that reads are anonymous without keys. This is behavioral transparency far beyond what annotations already provide; it clarifies the return shape and edge cases.

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 dense and packed with value; nearly every sentence earns its place. It is longer than a typical MCP description, but given the complexity (two input modes, 25-entry cap, complex return semantics, read-only auth notes) the length is justified. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then use cases, then semantics. Minor deduction for being quite long overall, which risks token cost, though no sentence is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description explains the crucial interpretation details an agent will need: 1-based index, sourceKey, shared index space with parseErrors, summary field semantics, truncation meaning, and identity-vs-support distinction. It covers prerequisites (auth key for LLM screen), scope limits, and what the tool does not check. For a batch tool with this complexity, the description is exceptionally complete.

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 coverage is 100% with rich per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds orientation about mutually exclusive inputs (EITHER bibliography OR claims, not both), default for checks, cap semantics, and the role of screenWithLlm relative to verifyCitation. It does not duplicate the schema's parameter definitions, but it adds integration-level meaning. Slightly below a 5 because it still relies on the schema for field-level detail, but it adds real value beyond 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?

The description opens with 'Verify a WHOLE bibliography in one call — the batch counterpart to verifyCitation' and makes clear it runs fabrication checks plus retraction lookups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools and names the specific use case. It also explains what it does not do (does not check whether a source supports the claim) which prevents misuse.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives ('Use when the user pastes a reference list, a .bib / .ris file, or asks to...') and names verifyCitation as the per-single citation counterpart. It gives routing rules for input variants, cap limit behavior, and even mentions 'split the bibliography and call again' for truncation. This is exemplary usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Scholar Sidekick toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: auditBibliography is the batch counterpart to verifyCitation, checkOpenAccess focuses on OA status, checkRetraction on retractions, resolveIdentifier returns raw metadata, formatCitation produces citation strings, and exportCitation produces files. Descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to prevent confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun camelCase pattern: audit, check, check, export, format, resolve, verify + object. There is no mixing of styles or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of citation verification and formatting. Each tool covers a distinct operational need (batch audit, single verify, OA, retraction, format, export, resolve) without bloat.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full citation lifecycle: verifying a single citation, auditing entire bibliographies, checking retraction and open-access status, formatting citations, exporting to common bibliography formats, and resolving identifiers to metadata. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.

Resources