download_arxiv
Download PDF of an arXiv paper.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| save_path | No | ./downloads |
Download PDF of an arXiv paper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| save_path | No | ./downloads |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / paper_id / titleRemoved value: -"Paper Id"Input schema / properties / save_path / titleRemoved value: -"Save Path"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"download_arxivArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "download_arxivOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. While it specifies the PDF format, it omits critical side effects (file system writes), idempotency concerns (overwriting existing files), and the return value (file path vs. binary content). Lacks safety disclosures expected for a file-download operation.
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 single sentence is efficient with no wasted words, but the overall description is inappropriately terse given the lack of schema documentation and annotations. It prioritizes brevity over necessary operational detail.
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?
Incomplete for a file-system-mutating tool. Without an output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., local file path). Missing safety context regarding disk writes and no mention of error conditions (e.g., invalid paper ID, network failure).
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters. It fails to do so, providing no guidance on the `paper_id` format (e.g., '2101.00001' vs. URL) or the `save_path` behavior (default location, directory creation).
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?
States a specific verb (Download) and resource (PDF of an arXiv paper), clearly identifying the target domain. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool `read_arxiv_paper`, leaving ambiguity about whether this saves a file to disk versus extracting text content.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the `read_arxiv_paper` alternative or other download sources. Does not mention prerequisites such as valid arXiv ID formats or directory permissions for the save_path.
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.