Pith

Get a paper's Pith review

get_review

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pith's review of one specific paper, in one call: the verdict, confidence, novelty and correctness scores, one-line summary, weakest assumption, and the paper's argument as short labeled statements (premise, machinery, core claim, falsifier) already extracted, so the paper's premises and logical structure can be stated without reading the PDF. Use this for any question about a specific paper: what it asserts, what it assumes, how the argument runs, how sound it is, or what Pith concluded. Accepts an arXiv id or URL, DOI, or Pith Number.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arxiv_id`	Yes	Any form the user gave: bare arXiv id (2401.00001), arXiv abs/pdf URL, DOI or doi.org URL, or Pith Number.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`lead`	No
`lean`	No
`note`	No
`found`	Yes
`title`	No
`verdict`	No
`argument`	No
`arxiv_id`	No
`falsifier`	No
`confidence`	No
`core_claim`	No
`primary_cat`	No
`reviewed_at`	No
`source_name`	No
`citation_url`	No
`submitted_at`	No
`novelty_score`	No
`discovery_kind`	No
`correctness_risk`	No
`one_line_summary`	No
`weakest_assumption`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

addedOutput schema / $defs / LeanStatement

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "anchor_verdict": {
+      "title": "Anchor Verdict",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "decl": {
+      "title": "Decl",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "label": {
+      "title": "Label",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lean_statement": {
+      "title": "Lean Statement",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "paper_claim_key": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "title": "Paper Claim Key"
+    },
+    "referee_judgments": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "title": "Referee Judgments",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "decl",
+    "label",
+    "lean_statement",
+    "paper_claim_key",
+    "anchor_verdict",
+    "referee_judgments"
+  ],
+  "title": "LeanStatement",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / $defs / LeanSummary

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The paper's latest Lean build on Pith and published referees' sign-offs on it.",
+  "properties": {
+    "mathlib": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "title": "Mathlib"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "title": "Note",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "statements": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/LeanStatement"
+      },
+      "title": "Statements",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "title": "Status",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "toolchain": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "title": "Toolchain"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "toolchain",
+    "mathlib",
+    "statements",
+    "note"
+  ],
+  "title": "LeanSummary",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / lean

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/LeanSummary"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and the tool has an output schema, so safety and return shape are covered structurally. The description adds only the framing that the argument is 'already extracted, so premises can be stated without reading the PDF' – useful but not rich behavioral context beyond what the structured fields provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and value, and every sentence carries information about returned content or usage. Slightly verbose with some redundancy between the description's accepted-format list and the identical schema parameter description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to reach for it, and accepted identifier formats. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% on the single parameter, and the description's accepted-formats clause (arXiv id/URL, DOI, Pith Number) merely restates what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pith's review of one specific paper') and enumerates exactly what the result contains (verdict, confidence, novelty/correctness, summary, weakest assumption, argument as labeled statements). An agent can distinguish this aggregated review from narrower siblings like get_claims or get_falsifier without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use this for any question about a specific paper: what it asserts, what it assumes, how the argument runs, how sound it is, or what Pith concluded,' and implies it replaces multiple narrower calls ('in one call'). It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pith tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?