metadata"Get paper info for [DOI]" / "bibliographic details for [paper]" / "title / authors / year of [DOI]" — bibliographic metadata for one or more DOIs (up to 50 at once). Returns title, authors, year, journal, publisher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dois | Yes | 1-50 DOIs. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Bibliographic metadata for requested DOIs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "dois": [
+ "10.1038/nature12345",
+ "10.1371/journal.pone.0123456"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "dois": [
+ "10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.001"
+ ]
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Bibliographic metadata for requested DOIs",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "author": {
+ "description": "Author(s)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "doi": {
+ "description": "Digital Object Identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "issue": {
+ "description": "Issue number",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "description": "Page numbers",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "pub_date": {
+ "description": "Publication date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Publication title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Publication type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "venue": {
+ "description": "Publication venue",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "volume": {
+ "description": "Volume number",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the batch limit of up to 50 DOIs and explicitly lists the returned fields, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action and key constraints, but includes redundant paraphrases such as 'Get paper info for [DOI]' and 'bibliographic details for [paper]' before the substantive sentence. It is concise overall but not maximally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description effectively provides all necessary context: it states the input (DOIs with batch limit) and the output fields. No significant behavioral or contextual gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the 'dois' parameter as '1-50 DOIs', and the description repeats the limit without adding new format or syntax details. With 100% schema coverage, the description offers no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves bibliographic metadata for DOIs, using specific verbs like 'Get' and listing return fields (title, authors, year, journal, publisher). This distinguishes it from citation-count or reference tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: when an agent needs paper metadata for DOIs, this tool is appropriate. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like citations or references, so guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and citation vs citations differ only by pluralization while actually accepting different ID types (OCI vs DOI). The server is named Opencitations but 31 of 37 tools serve unrelated purposes, so an agent cannot infer what the set is for without reading very long descriptions.
All names are snake_case and family prefixes (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*) give some predictability. However, conventions are mixed: bare resource nouns (citation, citations, references, metadata) coexist with verb_noun tools (resolve_entity, validate_claim) and noun phrases (recent_changes, entity_profile, deep_research), so there is no single pattern that lets an agent predict tool names.
37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a heavy set, and most are redundant with the server's own router tools — ask_pipeworx already reaches 5,759 underlying tools, making many direct tools overlapping conveniences. The scope also wildly overshoots the server name: only 6 of 37 tools serve the Opencitations citation-graph domain.
For the named OpenCitations domain, the core citation-graph read operations exist (metadata, incoming citations, outgoing references, counts, OCI record lookup), but there is no paper/DOI discovery or search tool — an agent must already possess a DOI, a dead end for title/author queries. The broader accidental domain (data routing, company research, prediction markets, monitoring) is covered unusually well, but that does not serve the server's stated purpose.