[Developer Tools] Search arXiv for academic papers in CS, ML, AI, physics, and math.
Args: query: Search query (e.g. 'large language models', 'transformer architecture') max_results: Maximum results (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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. However, it adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results are sorted. The lack of output schema means return value format is unexplained, which is a gap for a search tool.
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 defining the tool's domain and listing parameters with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the Args format is well-structured. No wasted words.
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?
For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter behavior well but omits what the results look like (e.g., titles, abstracts, links). The domain restriction is helpful, but the return format is unexplained. Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally provide this context.
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?
Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'query' with an example search string and 'max_results' with its default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema. Excellent compensation for missing schema descriptions.
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 it searches arXiv for academic papers in specific fields (CS, ML, AI, physics, math). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'academic-research__search_arxiv', which likely performs the same function but under a different namespace. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools include 'academic-research__search_arxiv' and 'academic-research__search_google_scholar', but the description provides no context for choosing this one. Additionally, no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.