Skip to main content
Glama

Scholar Sidekick

by io.github.mlava

Resolve Identifier

resolveIdentifier
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve scholarly identifiers to structured CSL JSON metadata (title, authors, journal, year, identifiers). Use when the user wants raw bibliographic data to inspect, transform, or feed into another tool — not a formatted citation. Common single-shot conversions: PMID → PMCID, arXiv → DOI, ISBN → CSL JSON, WHO IRIS URL → structured metadata. Accepts DOI, PMID, PMCID, ISBN, arXiv ID, ISSN, NASA ADS bibcode, or WHO IRIS URL, with or without prefixes (PMID:, arXiv:, ISBN hyphens, https://doi.org/...). Pass a single identifier or a comma/newline-separated batch — one round trip per call. Returns: a JSON array of CSL items, each with id, type, title, author[], issued.date-parts, container-title, DOI/PMID/PMCID/ISBN/ISSN/URL when available. Use formatCitation instead when the user wants a finished citation string in a specific style; use exportCitation when they want a downloadable bibliography file. 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; the underlying REST API caches repeated identical requests and surfaces cache state in the x-scholar-cache response header.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesOne or more identifiers to resolve (DOIs, PMIDs, PMCIDs, ISBNs, arXiv IDs, ISSNs, ADS bibcodes) separated by newlines or commas

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesResolved CSL JSON items, one per identifier.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses operationally significant behaviors: authentication options (SCHOLAR_API_KEY, RAPIDAPI_KEY), rate-limit tiers, REST API caching with x-scholar-cache response header, and the ability to batch requests in one round trip. This adds substantial value over the structured annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, usage examples, output summary, alternatives, safety, and API details. Every sentence carries operational weight, and the front-loaded purpose sentence makes the tool's function immediately clear. Length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool's breadth (multiple identifier types, batching, API keys, and output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, auth, rate limits, caching, and output format without redundant explanation of return values (output schema exists). It positions the tool well relative to its siblings.

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?

The input schema already covers the 'text' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description enriches it by enumerating additional identifier types (WHO IRIS URL), prefix handling (PMID:, arXiv:, ISBN hyphens, https://doi.org/...), and batch semantics (comma/newline-separated, one round trip per call). This goes beyond the schema's basic listing of identifier kinds.

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 states a specific verb+resource+output: 'Resolve scholarly identifiers to structured CSL JSON metadata (title, authors, journal, year, identifiers).' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming formatCitation and exportCitation as alternatives, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use when the user wants raw bibliographic data to inspect, transform, or feed into another tool — not a formatted citation.' It also gives clear exclusions and alternatives: 'Use formatCitation instead when the user wants a finished citation string in a specific style; use exportCitation when they want a downloadable bibliography file.'

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