ArXiv
Server Details
ArXiv preprint search, daily category digest, and author-collaborator graph.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: arxiv_daily_digest for daily category updates, arxiv_get_paper for fetching a specific paper by ID, and arxiv_search for query-based search. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'arxiv_' prefix followed by a verb_noun combination (daily_digest, get_paper, search). The naming is predictable and readable.
Three tools is well-scoped for the domain. They cover searching, retrieval, and daily digests without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers core arXiv interactions: search, paper retrieval, and daily digest. A minor gap is the lack of category listing or explicit 'get recent papers' by category beyond the digest, but the digest partially fills that need.
Available Tools
3 toolsarxiv_daily_digestBInspect
Recently-submitted papers in an arXiv category. Use for daily catch-up on a research area. E.g. category='cs.AI' for new AI papers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | Yes | arXiv category code. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Recently-submitted papers' without explaining ordering, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. The limit parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the purpose. No wasted words. Efficiently conveys key information.
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?
No output schema exists, but description does not explain what the tool returns (list of papers, metadata, etc.). Also lacks behavioral details. For a simple tool, it is incomplete; an agent needs to know output format to process results.
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 50% (category has description, limit does not). Description adds only an example for category (cs.AI) and no extra meaning for limit. Does not compensate 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?
Description clearly states it retrieves recently-submitted papers in an arXiv category, with an example (cs.AI). Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on daily catch-up for a category, unlike arxiv_get_paper (specific paper) or arxiv_search (general search). Could be improved by explicitly using a verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use for daily catch-up on a research area', providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., for specific older papers or cross-category searches) or explicitly name alternatives, though sibling tools imply these.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arxiv_get_paperAInspect
Fetch a single arXiv paper's metadata + abstract by id (e.g. '2024.04567' or 'arXiv:2024.04567v2').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches metadata and abstract and specifies the id format, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Somewhat transparent but lacks depth.
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 concise: one sentence that includes the purpose, output scope, and input format with examples. Every word 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 the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what is fetched (metadata + abstract) and how to specify the id. Could marginally improve by hinting at the return structure, but it's sufficient.
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?
The single parameter 'id' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by providing explicit example formats ('2024.04567' or 'arXiv:2024.04567v2'), which is highly valuable for correct invocation.
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?
Clearly specifies the action (fetch), resource (single arXiv paper's metadata + abstract), and method (by id). Provides example id formats, distinguishing it from siblings like arxiv_search and arxiv_daily_digest.
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?
Implies usage when a specific arXiv paper ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Siblings are listed in context but not referenced in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
arxiv_searchAInspect
Search arXiv preprints by free-text query, author, and/or category (e.g. 'cs.AI', 'stat.ML', 'q-fin.MF'). Returns up to 100 papers with title, abstract, authors, categories, publication date, DOI when available, PDF URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text search across all fields. | |
| author | No | Author name; quoted internally for exact match. | |
| sort_by | No | lastUpdatedDate | |
| category | No | arXiv category code, e.g. 'cs.AI'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description must handle behavioral disclosure. It states return limit (up to 100) and result fields but does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose, supported parameters, and output details without extraneous information. Every part serves a purpose.
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 five parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to use parameters with examples, and what results contain. Could mention that it is a read-only operation or clarify that it returns paper metadata rather than full text.
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 60% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable examples (e.g., category codes, note on author exact match) that go beyond the schema. It also clarifies the optional nature of parameters. Credit for enhancing parameter understanding.
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 preprints by query, author, and category, and specifies return fields and limits. This distinguishes it from siblings like arxiv_daily_digest (likely digests) and arxiv_get_paper (single paper fetch).
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 implies usage for searching arXiv with various filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!