MCP.Market

Is Scholar Sidekick MCP server safe?

Yes, with the usual care.

A86/100grade A

Passed every safety check we run. Maintained, authenticated, reachable, clean scan.

No critical or high findings in the latest scan.

How Scholar Sidekick compares

Against every graded MCP server, from our own scans and uptime checks. Updated after each scan run.

Safety score
86/100
higher than 72% of 48,255 servers
Tools that change things
0%
typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break
Uptime
100%
of our recent checks; the typical remote server answers 100%

What its tools let an agent do: 7 read

Release history: 3 versions in the registry since 2026-09-04, latest 2026-10-15, typically one every 38 days.

Public scan report

scanner v0.1.10 · 2026-10-16 · same rubric, same numbers if you re-run it

1 medium1 low
  • Code scan3 source files scanned20/25
  • Live reliabilityremote reachable in 759ms20/20
  • Tool poisoning7 tool descriptions checked13/15
  • Auth qualityopen endpoint, read-only tools10/15
  • Maintenancelast push 1 days ago15/15
  • Maintainer identityregistry namespace matches repository owner; GitHub account older than a year8/10

Findings (2)

  • mediumeval / new Function usedexec.eval
    dist/mcp-server.mjs: …ode, sch); const makeValidate = new Function(`${names_1.default.self}`, `${names_1.de…
  • lowUnusually long tool description (over 2,000 characters)poison.long-description
    tool verifyCitation: …Verify a claimed citation against the resolved record at its identifier. Detects the dominant AI-driven fabrication pattern documented by Topaz et al. (Lancet 2026): a real, resolvable identifier (DOI / PMID / PMCID / arXiv / etc.) paired with a title that does NOT correspond to the paper at that identifier. Use when the user pastes a citation and asks 'is this real?' or 'check this DOI' — most fabricated citations resolve cleanly under doi.org but their cited title and the resolved title disagree. Single citation per call. Required: `title` plus exactly one identifier (doi, pmid, pmcid, isbn, arxiv, issn, ads, or whoIrisUrl). Optional refinements: author (first-author family name), year, container (journal). Set `screenWithLlm: true` to invoke the Stage 3 LLM screen on low-confidence mismatches (catches informal-abbreviation false positives); LLM access is gated to authenticated first-party keys and paid RapidAPI tiers — anonymous callers get 400 LLM_SCREEN_FORBIDDEN. Returns: { verdict: 'matched' | 'mismatch' | 'not_found' | 'ambiguous', confidence: 'high' | 'medium' | 'low', matched: <resolved record or null>, mismatches: [{field, claimed, resolved, similarity}], candidates: [{item, registries, score}] (when title-search ran), _provenance: {stages_run, resolved_via, registries_searched, llm_screen} }. Verdict semantics: 'matched' = claim agrees with resolved record; 'mismatch' = identifier resolves but title does not match (Topaz fabrication pattern); 'ambiguous' = identifier resolves to one paper but the claimed title matches a DIFFERENT paper found via title-search (CITADEL 'citation error' subtype — wrong identifier for a real paper); 'not_found' = neither the identifier nor the title resolves anywhere. No sibling tool overlaps: resolveIdentifier returns metadata for a known-good identifier; verifyCitation is the only tool that cross-checks claimed title vs resolved metadata. Read-only and idempotent — safe to retry. Works anonymously for the non-LLM path; the Stage 3 LLM screen requires authentication — set SCHOLAR_API_KEY (a free ssk_ key from https://scholar-sidekick.com/account) or use a paid RapidAPI tier. SCHOLAR_API_KEY also raises your rate limit.…
Overall 86/100. Components that don't apply are left out of the denominator. Any critical finding is an F.RubricAppeal a findingJSON

Scholar Sidekick reviews, tools and install