read_medrxiv_paper
Read and extract text content from a medRxiv paper PDF.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| save_path | No | ./downloads |
Read and extract text content from a medRxiv paper PDF.
| 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: -"read_medrxiv_paperArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "read_medrxiv_paperOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden but offers minimal disclosure. States that text extraction occurs but fails to explain the 'save_path' parameter's function (does it save the PDF or extracted text?), output format, idempotency, or rate limiting.
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?
Extremely efficient at nine words with no redundancy and clear front-loading of the core action. However, given the complete absence of schema descriptions and annotations, this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than effective communication.
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?
Inadequate for a tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations. The description omits critical details: the 'save_path' behavior, expected return value format, and differentiation from the download workflow. Lacking an output schema, the description should have explained what 'extract text content' actually returns.
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% and the description completely fails to compensate. Neither 'paper_id' (required) nor 'save_path' (optional with default) are mentioned, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.
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?
Specific verb phrase 'Read and extract text content' clearly identifies the operation, while 'medRxiv paper PDF' precisely scopes the resource. Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'download_medrxiv' (extraction vs. retrieval) and other 'read_' tools via the medRxiv specificity.
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 versus 'download_medrxiv' or when text extraction is preferred over raw PDF retrieval. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned despite the sibling tool overlap.
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.