Give AI agents the environment they need

claude code + paperclip
  • Structured

    Documents are addressable like files, each with metadata, line-numbered full text, and sub-sections an agent can read directly, rather than scraping a rendered PDF page.

  • Traceable

    Every citation resolves to an exact line in an exact document (which you can see and explore), and claims get checked against the source text before they're surfaced.

  • Agent-native

    Search, filter, map, and reduce across hundreds of documents in one pass, instead of one query at a time.

Data Sources

  • PMC

    7.5M

  • bioRxiv

    388K

  • medRxiv

    82K

  • arXiv

    3.0M

  • Abstracts

    200M

  • FDA

    225K

  • ClinicalTrials.gov

    580K

  • Intl. registries

    430K

  • Patents

    170M

  • UniProt

    575K

  • PDB

    256K

  • ChEMBL

    2.9M

Paperclip chat

Explore and verify evidence in the browser.

Try Paperclip
Use cases

Explore ways to use Paperclip

Find cancer-driving GTPases that could be targeted by helping the protein return to its natural “off” state.

Identify cancer-associated GTPases where mutations or amplification increase the amount of active, GTP-bound protein. Group them by mechanism. Pull experimental rates and conditions comparing mutant and wild-type activity. Cross-check which mutations occur in patients and drive disease, and distinguish these from engineered laboratory mutants.

Non-RAS GTPase funnel. Helped ID which GOF/amplification events raise the GTP-bound pool, where mutant-vs-WT hydrolysis kinetics actually exist, what RAC1 P29S looks like in melanoma, and the final cut where GNAQ/GNA11 were the cleanest fit. Also flagged potential false drivers that are rare, subclonal, catalytic-dead, or amplification-only.

Identify discontinued drug candidates with a plausible biological fit for rare pediatric diseases.

Search for prior studies of each drug-disease pairing. Exclude drug-disease pairings that have already been investigated. Evaluate the the current standard of care and identify specific limitations a repurposed drug would need to address.

Paperclip narrowed the field to a handful of repurposing hypotheses supported by related disease biology. For the two strongest candidates, it identified the incumbent therapy and a concrete limitation to address, such as safety-monitoring burden or a lack of controlled trial data.

Map the global acne clinical-trial landscape since 2005.

Pull trials across multiple international registries — sponsor, drug, dose, phase, endpoints.

A cross-registry trial map across ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP/IRCT, jRCT, ISRCTN, and others, with sponsor, drug, route, dose/frequency, phase, and endpoint. It also exposed registry blind spots and identified commercially relevant newer mechanisms: clascoterone/TO-210, GED-0507, tibulizumab, engineered microbiome, and several formulation plays.

Determine which trials supported a prescription corticosteroid medication approval while investigating whether a pivotal study had missed an endpoint.

What were the Pivotal trials for (the specific corticosteroid medication)?

Paperclip found that FDA documents described the same trial as both “supporting” and “supporting pivotal.” It retrieved the passages documenting that inconsistency, helping the consultant understand why the trial’s classification was confusing and understand how it should be classified.

Determine whether an existing sequence-to-expression model could resolve single-nucleotide changes in the LDLR promoter.

Search for single-variant functional measurements, saturation mutagenesis, and reporter assays covering the LDLR promoter. Read the methods to establish the experimental construct and resolution of each assay. Build a benchmark table linking each variant’s position, construct, and measured effect, and identify which measurements can test sensitivity to single-nucleotide changes.

Paperclip assembled the published measurements into a benchmark table. When the researcher tested the model against it, the model tracked large deletions but missed single-base substitutions. That was enough to reject it for this task before building the variant-scoring infrastructure.

Integrations

Choose how you work with Paperclip

  • CLI + Coding Agents

    Install the CLI and point Claude Code, Cursor, or other coding agents directly at scientific research.

  • Paperclip Chat

    Search, inspect, and synthesize scientific evidence directly in the browser.

  • MCP

    Connect PAPERCLIP via MCP-compatible agents for structured search, navigation, and analysis.

Pricing
  • Free

    $0 per month

    • 100 map documents / day
    • 300 corpus-wide grep / min
    • 300 search / min
    • Standard command queue
    Start Building Free
  • Pro

    $20 per month

    • 10,000 map documents / day
    • 50 corpus-wide grep / min
    • 50 search / min
    • Priority command queue
    Upgrade to Pro
  • Enterprise

    Contact us

    • Access advanced routines, including meta-analyses and data generation
    • Priority feature requests
    • Commercial use authorization
    • Dedicated priority support
FAQ

Common Questions

What scientific sources can Paperclip search?

Paperclip covers full-text papers from PubMed Central, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and arXiv; broader abstracts through OpenAlex; clinical trial and regulatory records; patent publications; and biological databases including UniProt, PDB, and ChEMBL. See the current source list in the middle of the docs page for details.

What does “agent-native filesystem” mean?

Paperclip presents scientific material as navigable files and directories that an agent can search and inspect. For example, an agent can find a paper, open its methods section, search within its text, and use the result in a larger research workflow. The structure gives agents repeatable operations over evidence instead of a collection of disconnected search results. It makes answers much more thorough, accurate and compute efficient.

How is Paperclip different from a literature search tool? How is it different than a general AI model search?

Literature search helps you find relevant records. Paperclip also gives an agent operations for reading source material, querying across records, and carrying evidence into a reusable workspace. That matters when the task requires comparing methods or findings across papers and other scientific sources, then showing which material supports the conclusion.

Can I check the evidence behind an answer?

Yes. Paperclip lets agents read source text with line numbers, and Paperclip Repos can save papers alongside the claims an agent intends to cite. When a repo is committed, Paperclip checks each claim against its source and identifies unsupported claims. See how Paperclip Repos work.

What can I build with Paperclip?

Paperclip can support scientific copilots and agent workflows for literature reviews, target research, trial landscapes, regulatory research, and any questions that span multiple source types. An agent can search for relevant material, inspect the underlying evidence, compare findings, and preserve the research trail for later review.

How do I get started with Paperclip?

You can try Paperclip in the browser, install the CLI for terminal or coding-agent workflows, or connect an MCP-compatible client to the hosted server. Developers can also use the Python SDK or HTTP API in custom applications. Start with the setup guide and choose the route that fits your workflow.

Paperclip use case

Give your agents the environment they need for biomedicine.

Try Paperclip

Contact us

Connect with GXL