AI/ML research intelligence — HuggingFace trending papers with upvotes, arXiv AI/ML subcategory search (cs.LG, cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.CV), and DBLP CS bibliography. Built for AI agents researching the latest in machine learning.
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 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
get_ai_papers and search_arxiv_ai both search AI/ML papers by keyword, with only subtle differences in source and sort order, making them easy to confuse. search_dblp is distinct as it covers broader CS publications and authors, but the overlap between the first two creates ambiguity.
Two tools use the 'search_' prefix and one uses 'get_', which is a minor inconsistency, but all follow a predictable <verb>_<source> pattern. The names are readable and reasonably consistent overall.
With only 3 tools, the server is slim but suitable for a focused paper-search use case. The count is slightly thin but not insufficient, as each tool covers a distinct source.
The server covers searching across multiple paper sources, but lacks tools for retrieving specific paper details or managing searches. The overlap between HuggingFace and arXiv leaves a gap in distinguishing trending vs. recent results, and no tool for direct paper lookup by ID, making the surface incomplete for a comprehensive paper-search workflow.
get_ai_papersAInspectGet trending or searched AI/ML research papers from HuggingFace Papers. Returns trending papers for a given date or search results by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query (for type=search) | |
| date | No | Date for trending papers (YYYY-MM-DD, default: yesterday) | |
| type | No | trending or search (default: trending) | trending |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two modes (trending by date, search by keyword) but does not mention response format, rate limits, or other behavioral details. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise clarification of the two return modes. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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 tool has 4 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the main modes but does not mention result format, defaults beyond schema, or how parameters interact (e.g., q needed for search). It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about the two modes ('type=trending' vs 'type=search') but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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's purpose: getting trending or searched AI/ML research papers from HuggingFace Papers. The verb 'Get' and the source 'HuggingFace Papers' clearly distinguish it from the sibling tools (search_arxiv_ai, search_dblp) which target different repositories.
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 when to use the tool: when trending or searching HuggingFace papers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'for arXiv use search_arxiv_ai'), leaving the differentiation to the user's inference from the source name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_arxiv_aiAInspectSearch arXiv for AI/ML papers by keyword and category. Returns recent submissions sorted by date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Keyword search query | large language model |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20) | |
| category | No | arXiv category: cs.AI, cs.LG, cs.CL, cs.CV, cs.RO, stat.ML (default: cs.LG) | cs.LG |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that results are 'recent submissions sorted by date,' which is useful. However, it omits details about response structure, pagination, or any API requirements. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core function and return behavior. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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 simple search tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and return ordering. Since there is no output schema, it could be more complete by mentioning result fields, but the current level is sufficient for basic usage.
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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'keyword and category' aligns with the q and category parameters but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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's purpose: 'Search arXiv for AI/ML papers by keyword and category.' It also mentions the return behavior ('Returns recent submissions sorted by date'), which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ai_papers, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provides clear context: this tool should be used when searching arXiv for AI/ML papers. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, which would be needed for a 5, but the intended use is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dblpBInspectSearch DBLP computer science bibliography for publications or authors. Free, no key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Publication search query | transformer attention |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| author | No | Search by author name instead of publication title |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the service is free and requires no key, and that it searches both publications and authors. However, it omits details like rate limits, pagination, and return format.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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 low-complexity tool with a complete schema, the description covers basic purpose and a key practical detail (no key required). However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings and does not mention the expected result shape. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 searches DBLP for publications or authors, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the unique resource name provides implicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_ai_papers or search_arxiv_ai. The only usage hint is 'Free, no key required,' which is a practical benefit but not a selection criterion.
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!
