Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Sidekick

by io.github.mlava

Check Retraction

checkRetraction
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or had an expression of concern raised. Use when the user asks 'has this paper been retracted?' or wants to verify a paper's standing before citing it (clinical, regulatory, evidence-synthesis contexts). For multi-paper bibliography audits (clinical guidelines, systematic reviews), loop one call per identifier — the tool intentionally rejects batch input to keep retraction-status results unambiguous per work. Sourced from Crossref updated-by (which mirrors Retraction Watch). Resolves DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ADS inputs to a DOI before lookup; ISBN inputs always return doi=null and reason='no_doi' since books are not in the retraction graph. arXiv inputs check the linked published-journal DOI when arXiv records one; a preprint without one returns doi=null and reason='no_doi' (preprints are outside the Crossref retraction graph — arXiv marks withdrawals on the abstract page instead). Single identifier per call — does NOT accept comma/newline batches; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Returns: { doi, resolvedFrom?, reason?, result } where result has isRetracted, hasCorrections, hasConcern (booleans), notices (array of {type, label, doi, date, source} where type is a raw Crossref update type such as 'retraction', 'correction', 'erratum' or 'expression_of_concern'), and title; result is null when no DOI could be resolved and reason explains why ('no_doi'). No sibling tool overlaps this — resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not retraction status. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously against the public Scholar Sidekick API (rate-limited free tier); set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) for higher limits, or RAPIDAPI_KEY for paid RapidAPI tiers. Rate limits follow your tier; Crossref is queried server-side with its own caching.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesA single scholarly identifier to check. 1–500 characters. Non-DOI inputs are resolved to a DOI server-side before the lookup; if no DOI can be derived, the tool returns doi=null with reason='no_doi'. Pass exactly one identifier — comma/newline batches are NOT accepted by this tool; loop one call per identifier for multiple papers. Accepted: DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv ID, or NASA ADS bibcode (with or without prefixes). ISBN inputs are accepted but always return doi=null since books are not in the retraction graph.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doiYesResolved DOI, or null when none could be derived.
reasonNoWhy result is null (e.g. 'no_doi').
resultYesRetraction status, or null when no DOI resolved.
resolvedFromNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces and expands on them with concrete behavioral details: source is Crossref updated-by mirroring Retraction Watch, DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ADS resolution behavior, ISBN always returning no_doi, arXiv preprint handling, return shape, and rate-limit/auth behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately front-loaded with purpose and use cases, and nearly every sentence adds value. It loses a point due to noticeable redundancy around batch rejection and looping, which appears twice in close proximity.

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?

For a tool with one identifier parameter and a defined output schema, the description covers all important operational context: ID resolution, edge cases, return structure, null/reason behavior, authentication options, rate limits, and idempotency. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, yet the description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: accepted identifier types, the deliberate rejection of batch input, ISBN behavior, and the resolution-to-DOI flow. This materially helps an agent form correct single-identifier calls.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a single scholarly work has been retracted, corrected, or had an expression of concern raised.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from resolveIdentifier by stating that resolveIdentifier returns metadata but not retraction status.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: user asks about retraction or wants to verify standing before citing. It also gives explicit exclusions: batch input is rejected, and multi-paper audits must loop one call per identifier, with resolveIdentifier named as a non-overlapping alternative.

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