Get 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) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.