ArXiv preprint search, daily category digest, and author-collaborator graph.
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.
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
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.
arxiv_daily_digestAInspectRecently-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.
arxiv_get_paperAInspectFetch 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.
arxiv_searchAInspectSearch 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.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.