Context7
Feeds AI the latest docs for libraries and frameworks before it answers, so code it writes does not use outdated, removed functions.
Computer or cloud
FORRT Research
Overview
Description from the maker (original English)
Produce verifiable FORRT nanopublication chains: grounded quote checks and Science Live projections.
PopNx MCP’s three pillars
These three are never merged into one score: opinions, measurements and popularity are different things.
- User voiceiNo reviews yetReviews open together with accounts in a later step
- Our basic checksi0 of 1 passedChecked from public information; code not scanned yet
- UsageiVery new↓ 27/wk · ★ –
What you can do with it
We have not written a plain-language summary for this one yet. Below are the facts we read from the registry.
- Connection: Runs on your computer
- Transport: stdio
- Category: Search & AI memory
- You need to fill in: SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY
Install
Pick the AI app you use, then copy the settings.
Before you install
- Basic checks: 0 of 1 passed
- Runs on your computer with your user’s permissions (files, network, apps).
- You fill in yourself:
SCIENCELIVE_API_BASE,SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY
Values marked secret are keys to your account. Never share them or paste them into a chat.
You need
- PyPIPython’s uv installed (for the uvx command)
Which app do you use?
Pick your app above. We remember it, so next time the button says “Install in …”.
Open Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config, and paste this into claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"forrt-research": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"forrt-research-mcp"
],
"env": {
"SCIENCELIVE_API_BASE": "your-value",
"SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY": "your-value"
}
}
}
}Run this in your terminal
claude mcp add forrt-research --env SCIENCELIVE_API_BASE=your-value --env SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY=your-value -- uvx forrt-research-mcpFill in the empty values before running it.
Or copy the settings yourself
Paste into .cursor/mcp.json in your project, or ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"forrt-research": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"forrt-research-mcp"
],
"env": {
"SCIENCELIVE_API_BASE": "your-value",
"SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY": "your-value"
}
}
}
}Your browser asks to open the app, then the app shows the settings and asks you to confirm. Key values are left empty for you to fill in.
Or copy the settings yourself
Paste into .vscode/mcp.json in your project
{
"servers": {
"forrt-research": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"forrt-research-mcp"
],
"env": {
"SCIENCELIVE_API_BASE": "your-value",
"SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY": "your-value"
}
}
}
}Your browser asks to open the app, then the app shows the settings and asks you to confirm. Key values are left empty for you to fill in.
This one runs on your computer, and ChatGPT can only connect to servers on the internet. Pick another app.
Your choice stays on this device in a cookie; no account needed.
Values you fill in
SCIENCELIVE_API_BASEenvScience Live API base URL (default: https://api.sciencelive4all.org)- Science Live API key; optional, /np/constellation is a public read
These settings are generated from the maker’s registry entry. If the README says otherwise, follow the README.
What it can do
Runs on your computer; the tool list appears in your AI app after you install it.
Basic checksi
We check information anyone can see; we have not read the code. Checks that do not apply are left out of the count. · Checked Nov 8, 2026
- ! Caution
Maker matches the repo
The publisher (sciencelive4all.org) is not the repo owner (ScienceLiveHub); someone else may have listed it
- … Not checked yet
Still maintained
We have not read this repo from GitHub yet
- … Not checked yet
Has a licence
We have not read this repo from GitHub yet
- – Not applicable
Endpoint responds
This one runs on your computer; there is no internet endpoint
- – Not applicable
Sign-in with OAuth
Runs on your computer and uses local settings instead
- … Not checked yet
No hidden instructions in tool descriptions
Runs on your computer; we can only read tool lists from internet endpoints
Compared with others in Search & AI memoryi
- More stars than 0% of the other 5686 servers in this category
- Published to the registry more recently than 74% of the other 5686 servers in this category
- Basic checks equal to or better than 22% of the other 5686 servers in this category
Compared with every active server in this category in the registry. Stars count only when the publisher owns the repo.
Common questions
Is FORRT Research safe?
It passed 0 of 1 applicable basic checks. We have not read the code. Before adding a key or token, see what access the server asks for and use a key with only the permissions you need.
What keys or codes does it need?
You need to fill in: SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY
Does it run on my computer or in the cloud?
It runs on your computer. Your AI app starts it when needed, and data does not pass through the maker’s servers (unless it calls an online service itself).
Is it still maintained?
The GitHub repo last changed –, and the latest version (0.2.0) reached the registry 14 days ago.
Which apps can use it?
Apps that support MCP, such as Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor and VS Code. You also need Python (uv) on your computer.
What can I use instead?
In the same category: Context7, Codebase Memory, Exa
Alternatives
Servers in the same category from other makers, sorted by stars.
Reading a card:↓ Downloads per weeki★ GitHub starsiThree pillars: reviews · checks · usageiUpdated = latest version published to the registryi
Codebase Memory
Codebase knowledge graph for AI agents — 162 languages, sub-ms queries, 99% fewer tokens.
Runs on your computer
Exa
Connect AI agents to Exa for web search, content fetching, and multi-step research.
Runs in the cloud✓ exa.ai
README from the maker
Open the README
Copied from the maker’s repo as written. PopNx MCP has not reviewed or endorsed it. HTML, images and scripts are removed. Links lead off this site.
forrt-research-mcp
An MCP server for producing verifiable FORRT nanopublication chains — the tools a researcher needs while doing the work, not while looking for it. It serves all three shapes of study on the same rails: reproduction, replication, and research that starts from scratch.
It is the third of three servers that compose:
| Server | Question it answers |
|---|---|
| OpenAIRE MCP | What is in the literature? |
replication-radar | What is worth replicating, and has it been done? |
| `forrt-research-mcp` | How do I produce a chain that is correct and verifiable? |
Built for the workflow in forrt-replication-template, but it needs nothing from that repo — any agent can call it.
Scope: reproduction, replication, and research from scratch
All three work here, and they use the same chain:
anchor → AIDA → Claim → Study → Outcome → CiTOStep 01 is one of three anchors, and they are not variants of one form. Which anchor fits is independent of whether the study is a reproduction, a replication or original research:
| Anchor | Required fields | Notes |
|---|---|---|
01_quote Quote-with-comment | paper, quotation, comment | no type, no label. quotation is capped at 500 characters and comment at 800 — in the template's own regex, not in prose |
01_pico PICO question | label, description, type, + P/I/C/O descriptions | the only anchor with a question-type vocabulary (5 terms) |
01_pcc PCC question | label, description, + P/C/C descriptions | no `type` field at all |
The three share no field ids whatsoever, so call template_fields on the anchor you are actually using rather than assuming they match. The pico_question_type vocabulary is named for PICO deliberately: a PCC question has no type to look up.
verify_quote applies to the Quote anchor only — and that is the one anchor with a dedicated tool, because a quotation is the one field whose correctness can be *proved* rather than reviewed.
constellation and prior_work surface a question anchor with its framework, label, full question text and its framework's components — PICO's population / intervention / comparator / outcome, PCC's population / concept / context. Question nodes keep all of that in a question object and leave their top-level label empty, so anything reading them like a quote returns nothing. Tested against two real published question nanopubs.
For a study starting from scratch, the Claim is your own hypothesis, derived from your own question or from the work you are building on. The FORRT Claim template's source is optional, so it needs no external paper — and the Claim-before-Study order then reads as pre-registration, not as a mismatch. verify_chain takes a mode (auto / replication / reproduction / new_research) that changes only what is *required*: from-scratch research has no existing work to cite, so no CiTO step and no cited DOI are expected.
The one place the templates still assume an original is the study_type vocabulary on 04_study, whose three terms are all replication-flavoured (Replication Study, Reproduction Study, or both). There is no term for *an original study testing its own claim*. Three field prompts read oddly too — scope and methodology say "is reproduced/replicated", and the Outcome's conclusion says "about the original claim" — but they are only wording; validationStatus (validated / partially supported / contradicted / inconclusive / not tested) describes testing your own hypothesis perfectly well.
So closing the gap is plausibly one added vocabulary term and three reworded prompts, not a new template family. When that lands, this server picks it up with no code change: template_fields and vocabulary fetch live, and driftedFromSnapshot flags the supersession so the vendored copy gets re-cut.
A note on using "Reproduction Study" for from-scratch work. It is a
reasonable workaround while the vocabulary lacks a better term, but the
template means the replication-science sense — *"direct reproduction: same
methodology, same tools"*, i.e. re-running someone else's analysis — not the
RSE sense of "my work is reproducible". Downstream consumers read it the first
way:
replication-radar's verdict overlay andverified_claimswill present
the study as verification of an existing claim.
Why a server and not a prompt
Two jobs here look like reasoning but are not, and doing them in an agent loop makes them unreproducible and expensive:
1. Reading a published chain. /np/constellation walks the FORRT citation graph bidirectionally and returns everything it reaches. For a single marine-heatwave chain that is 330 KB, 98 nodes and 1012 edges — of which 64 nodes are AIDA statements belonging to entirely different studies. Handing that to an agent burns its context and invites it to reason over another paper's claims. constellation returns the same chain in ~16 KB (4.7 %).
2. Checking a quotation is real. A FORRT Quote nanopub must be verbatim. That is a string search, not a judgement — so it should be a tool that cannot be talked out of its answer, and that anyone can re-run to get the same result.
What it does not do
It does not search papers (that is the OpenAIRE MCP), rank replication targets (that is replication-radar), or write nanopub content. It also does not *extract* claims: choosing which sentence carries a paper's headline claim is a judgement, and wrapping a judgement in a tool would not make it reproducible — a model behind a tool boundary is exactly as non-deterministic as one in the agent loop. The division this server is built around:
| The model proposes | This server disposes |
|---|---|
| Which sentence is the claim | Whether that sentence is in the PDF, where, under what SHA-256 |
| How to phrase the AIDA | What fields the template actually has, and their caps |
| Which claim type or CiTO relation applies | Which values the form will actually accept |
| Which Wikidata topic is meant | Whether that QID exists and is of the right type |
| Which paper to cite | Whether that DOI resolves, and to what |
| Whether to extend or dispute prior work | What prior chains already claimed |
Install
pipx install forrt-research-mcpclaude mcp add forrt-research -s user -- forrt-research-mcp
User-scoped (-s user) so it is available in every session and folder, and does not clash with a per-repo config. For other agents, the stdio command is forrt-research-mcp.
# optionalexport SCIENCELIVE_API_BASE="https://api.sciencelive4all.org" # default (production) export SCIENCELIVE_API_KEY="sl_…" # /np/constellation is a public read
The default base is production. To test against the dev deployment, set
SCIENCELIVE_API_BASE=https://api-dev.sciencelive4all.org. A constellation
that nobody has requested recently can take ~60 s to build; after that it is
cached for 4 h and returns in well under a second.
Tools
verify_quote(pdf_path, quotation)
Proves a candidate quotation is in a source PDF before it is published as verbatim. Returns a graded verdict with page, character offsets and the file's SHA-256:
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
exact | byte-identical to the extracted page text |
normalized | matched after whitespace / ligature / typographic punctuation / line-break-hyphen repair |
extraction_tolerant | additionally ignored hyphens and punctuation spacing |
whitespace_insensitive | additionally deleted every space — for text layers that break words apart |
not_found | not in this PDF — do not publish it |
Every tier canonicalises *formatting only* — never words, digits or order. A quotation with one digit changed scores ~0.91 similarity against the source and is still not_found; on a miss, closest.text_in_pdf shows what the paper actually says there.
A tier below exact is normal. PDF extraction inserts line breaks, loses hyphens, and sometimes breaks words apart entirely:
- the quotation published in the real marine-heatwave chain matches only at
extraction_tolerant, becausepypdfreads the paper's35-yearas35yearand(p <as( p <; - Hundhausen et al. 2024 renders its own abstract as
CP en semble,largest c hanges,prec ipitation— spaces *inside* words, which no punctuation rule can undo. That needswhitespace_insensitive, which deletes every space and therefore does not verify word boundaries; it declines to run below 40 characters, where two short texts could collide.
"Character-for-character" is not literally achievable against extracted PDF text, which is why the result is graded rather than boolean.
Words split across a line break (convection-\npermitting) are rejoined at the normalized tier. A *suspended* hyphen (15- and 30-minute) is deliberately NOT rejoined — the rule requires a line break, because joining those would corrupt the text.
constellation(uri, depth=5, max_nodes=80)
The FORRT chain(s) reachable from a published nanopub URI, projected to agent-size: chains with their steps in chain order, the apex CiTO, any Research Synthesis, and the Quote/Question anchors attributable to this paper.
Read citedPaper, not the API's top-level paperDoi — see *Upstream quirks* below.
stepsPresent legitimately omits steps: a CiTO at the apex of a constellation is hoisted out of its chain, and Quote/AIDA anchors are often not enumerated. Missing does not mean unpublished.
prior_work(uri)
What has already been claimed about a paper — the starting point for new work, replication or otherwise. Per completed chain: claim type, scope, method, deviations, verdict, confidence, repository, and limitations.
limitations is the field to read most carefully. It is where previous authors stated, in signed and immutable words, what their study did *not* cover — which is often exactly where the next study begins. In the marine-heatwave chain it records that the paper's better-known 54 % headline describes a different analysis over a different period and was not tested.
constellation_raw(uri, …)
The unprojected response, for debugging the graph or an upstream data problem. Large; prefer constellation.
template_fields(step, live=True) · vocabulary(name, live=True) · list_schemas()
A nanopub template is the schema for its chain step, so these turn "never invent a field name" and "never invent a claim type" from rules an agent has to remember into a lookup that can only return real values.
template_fields returns the real field ids, prompts, required/repeatable flags, and the regex / prefix / datatype constraints — which is where the Quote template's character cap actually lives, rather than in a hand-written doc that drifts. step accepts 05_outcome, 05, or outcome.
vocabulary returns the allowed values of a controlled vocabulary, taken from the real restricted-choice field:
| Name | From | Terms |
|---|---|---|
claim_type | 03_claim.forrtType | 7 |
study_type | 04_study.type | 3 — the Reproduction vs Replication distinction |
validation_status | 05_outcome.validationStatus | 5 |
confidence_level | 05_outcome.confidenceLevel | 5 |
cito_relation | 06_citation.cites | 43, via a separate value-list nanopub |
question_type | 01_pico.type | 5 |
Both fetch live by default and fall back to a **bun
Only the beginning is shown; read the rest in the repo