publisherDEPRECATED ALIAS for biorxiv_publisher — identical behavior, kept for existing callers. New callers should use biorxiv_publisher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| prefix | Yes | DOI prefix, e.g. "10.1038" | |
| server | Yes | ||
| date_or_range | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "date_or_range": "2024-01-01/2024-03-31",
+ "prefix": "10.1038",
+ "server": "biorxiv"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Published preprints by DOI prefix response from bioRxiv/medRxiv API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the deprecation status and the claim of identical behavior, but does not explain what that behavior actually is; it relies on the sibling tool's definition.
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, front-loaded with the key deprecation status, and every clause earns its place by explaining who should use it and which alternative to choose. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 deprecated alias, the essential context is present: it is deprecated, it behaves identically to biorxiv_publisher, and new callers are redirected. The output schema covers return structure, and the only real gap is the lack of an inline definition of biorxiv_publisher's behavior, which an agent can find in the sibling tool.
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 only 25%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying behavior is identical to biorxiv_publisher. Cursor, server, and date_or_range are effectively undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for biorxiv_publisher and states that behavior is identical, which tells the agent what this tool is but not what operation it performs. There is no verb or resource description (e.g., 'retrieve publisher'), so an agent seeing this tool alone cannot know its actual function.
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 usage guidance: existing callers may keep using it, while new callers should use biorxiv_publisher. This is a clear when-to-use vs alternative statement and leaves no ambiguity about which tool an agent should select.
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.