[Academic Research] Search arXiv for academic papers. Returns titles, authors, abstracts, and PDF links.
Args: query: Search query (e.g. 'transformer attention mechanism', 'quantum computing') max_results: Maximum papers to return (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns specific fields (titles, authors, abstracts, PDF links) and gives example queries. This complements the annotations well, though it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or date constraints.
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 description is extremely concise: two sentences and a short bullet-style list. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Every element earns its place.
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 there is no output schema, the description covers return values (titles, authors, abstracts, PDF links). Parameters are well explained. For a simple search tool, this is mostly complete. Minor omissions like pagination or sorting options prevent a 5.
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?
Input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing both parameters (query and max_results) with an example for query and the default value for max_results. This provides practical usage guidance beyond the raw schema. However, it could include more details like query format or allowed values.
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 'Search arXiv for academic papers' and lists return fields (titles, authors, abstracts, PDF links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'academic-research__search_google_scholar' by specifying the database (arXiv). The verb 'search' and resource 'arXiv' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'academic-research__search_google_scholar' or 'developer-tools__search_arxiv'. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection. The agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.