publishedDEPRECATED ALIAS for biorxiv_published — identical behavior, kept for existing callers. New callers should use biorxiv_published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| server | Yes | ||
| date_or_range | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "date_or_range": "2023-06-01/2023-12-31",
+ "server": "biorxiv"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Published preprints response from bioRxiv/medRxiv API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that behavior is identical to biorxiv_published and kept for compatibility, which is useful context but does not disclose any additional side effects or quirks.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the deprecation notice and clear routing to the replacement tool. 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?
The description tells new callers to use biorxiv_published, and annotations plus the existing output schema cover safety and return values. However, it is not fully self-contained: it provides no parameter semantics and defers entirely to the sibling tool, which may be sufficient for an alias but leaves gaps for agents needing to invoke it directly.
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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level information, only saying behavior matches biorxiv_published. The input schema provides types and an example, but no descriptions, so an agent cannot understand cursor/server/date_or_range semantics from this definition 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 explicitly states this is a deprecated alias for biorxiv_published with identical behavior, making the resource and relationship clear. It does not restate the underlying operation itself, but for an alias tool the purpose is unambiguously defined and distinguished from the canonical sibling.
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 explicit routing: 'New callers should use biorxiv_published.' It names the alternative and the condition for using it, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool.
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.