summarybioRxiv submission/publication counts. Interval: "m" (monthly, default) or "y" (yearly). bioRxiv only — medRxiv has no /sum endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interval | No | "m" (monthly, default) or "y" (yearly) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "interval": "m"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "bioRxiv submission/publication counts summary response",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds domain-specific context (bioRxiv only, no medRxiv endpoint) beyond what annotations provide, clarifying scope and limitations without contradicting them.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides parameter details and domain restriction. 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?
With only one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, how to configure it, and its scope. No gaps remain.
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 100%, and the parameter description in the schema ('"m" (monthly, default) or "y" (yearly)') is identical to what is in the tool description. Therefore, the description adds no new meaning to the parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 returns 'bioRxiv submission/publication counts', specifying the resource (bioRxiv) and action (counting). While the exact scope of 'submission/publication' is slightly ambiguous, it distinguishes from medRxiv. The title 'Summary' is vague, but the description compensates.
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 explicitly explains the interval parameter values and default, and notes that the tool works only for bioRxiv (not medRxiv), guiding when to use it. It does not compare against sibling tools, but given the context, that is not necessary.
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.