Paper Finder

Search arXiv

search_arxiv

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants preprints from arXiv, such as "search arXiv for speculative decoding" or "newest cs.CL papers on tokenization". Pass topic words, and optionally an arXiv category such as cs.CL, from_year, sort (relevance or newest) and a limit of up to 10. Returns each preprint's title, authors, year, the start of its abstract, its arXiv page and its PDF link. Preprints are not peer reviewed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	relevance by default
`limit`	No	Number of papers to return, 5 by default
`query`	Yes	Topic words, such as "speculative decoding"
`category`	No	arXiv category such as "cs.CL" or "stat.ML"
`from_year`	No	Only papers published in this year or later

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	Yes	Date the indexes were read (UTC, YYYY-MM-DD); they are updated continuously
`count`	Yes
`error`	No	Present when status is not ok: a stable code, what went wrong and what to do next.
`query`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`source`	Yes	The indexes the answer was read from
`status`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful domain context beyond that: 'Preprints are not peer reviewed' warns about source quality, and the return summary tells the agent what to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and examples, then parameters and return format in tight sequence. Dense and well-organized, though the example list is somewhat verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description's return-value summary is supplementary rather than required. Given a simple 5-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, coverage is nearly complete; the only gap is lack of sibling differentiation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (query, sort, limit, category, from_year) are already documented. The description restates category examples and the limit cap but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (search arXiv for preprints) with concrete example queries, making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_papers, so the agent must infer which to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives when-to-use context via example phrasings ('search arXiv for speculative decoding', 'newest cs.CL papers'), which implies the trigger. But it offers no explicit when-not guidance and never names alternatives like search_papers or get_paper.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Paper Finder tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.