search_biorxiv
Search academic papers from bioRxiv.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Search academic papers from bioRxiv.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / max_results / titleRemoved value: -"Max Results"Input schema / properties / max_results / typePrevious value: -"integer"New value: +"number"Input schema / properties / query / titleRemoved value: -"Query"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"search_biorxivArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "search_biorxivOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what fields are searched (titles/abstracts/full-text), return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits.
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 four-word sentence is efficiently structured with no waste, though it is underspecified. Every word earns its place, but the extreme brevity harms completeness given the lack of schema documentation.
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?
Given 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the query parameter accepts or what data structure is returned, leaving critical gaps for an agent trying to construct valid invocations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it completely omits them. No guidance on query syntax, boolean operators, or the max_results default behavior is provided.
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?
The description clearly states the verb (Search) and resource (academic papers from bioRxiv). It distinguishes from siblings like search_arxiv and search_medrxiv by specifying the bioRxiv source, though it could clarify search scope (e.g., title vs. full-text).
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. While the bioRxiv naming implies use for biological preprints, the description doesn't clarify when to prefer this over search_pubmed or search_arxiv given the extensive sibling tool list.
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.