ArXiv preprint search, daily category digest, and author-collaborator graph.
Glama couldn't complete the latest health check. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct operation: daily digest for recent papers, get single paper by ID, and search by query. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools are prefixed with 'arxiv_' for consistency. However, 'daily_digest' uses noun_noun, while 'get_paper' and 'search' use verb_noun and verb respectively, showing minor inconsistency.
Three tools is well-scoped for an arXiv server, covering the core needs of searching, retrieving details, and daily discovery without unnecessary complexity.
Covers essential arXiv operations (search, fetch, daily digest). Missing features like category listing or user library, but these are not critical for basic access.
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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'recently-submitted' which implies a reading operation, but lacks details on recency, pagination, or ordering. The description is minimally transparent about behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Example is efficient.
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 and no description of return format. For a simple digest tool, it may be adequate, but it lacks information on what fields are returned (titles, authors, etc.). Completeness is moderate.
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 input schema has 50% description coverage (only category has a description). The description adds an example for category but does not clarify the 'limit' parameter. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 retrieves recently-submitted papers for an arXiv category, with an example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arxiv_search (search) and arxiv_get_paper (specific paper) by focusing on daily catch-up for a category.
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 suggests usage for 'daily catch-up on a research area', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the example and sibling names imply the appropriate scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a single arXiv paper's metadata + abstract by id (e.g. '2024.04567' or 'arXiv:2024.04567v2').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It discloses the input format and that it returns metadata and abstract, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid IDs. Moderate transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. Every part is essential and efficiently conveys the tool's 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 the single parameter, no output schema, and simple sibling tools, the description is largely complete. It explains the input and output scope (metadata + abstract), though it could optionally detail the metadata structure.
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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds significant value by explaining the 'id' parameter format with examples (e.g., '2024.04567' or 'arXiv:2024.04567v2'), which is not evident from the schema alone.
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 tool fetches a single paper's metadata and abstract by ID, with explicit examples of valid ID formats. It distinctly differentiates from siblings (search and daily digest) by focusing on a single paper retrieval.
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 when you have a specific arXiv ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling tools, the context is clear, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that the tool returns up to 100 papers with specific fields, implying read-only behavior, but does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or other traits beyond obvious search semantics.
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?
Single sentence with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by result details. No fluff, every part 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?
With no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values (title, abstract, authors, categories, date, DOI, PDF URL). It also describes key parameters and gives category examples. However, it omits explanation of sort_by and limit behavior, which are present in the schema but not elaborated.
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 60% (query, author, category have descriptions). The free-text description adds category examples and notes 'quoted internally for exact match' for author, but does not elaborate on limit or sort_by. Thus adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 the tool searches arXiv preprints by free-text query, author, and/or category, and returns up to 100 papers with specific fields. This distinguishes it from siblings arxiv_daily_digest and arxiv_get_paper.
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 targeted search via multiple parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
arxiv_daily_digestarxiv_get_paperarxiv_searchExtract papers from ArXiv — titles, abstracts, authors, categories & PDF links. Monitor new AI, phys
ArXiv preprints + Google Scholar papers, with citation counts in one query.
Discover the latest arXiv papers by category and keyword. Control how many results you get to spee…
Academic paper search, scientific literature, citation analysis, arXiv & semantic related-work.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.