Download PDF of an arXiv paper.
Args:
paper_id: arXiv paper ID (e.g., '2106.12345').
save_path: Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads').
Returns:
Path to the downloaded PDF file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| save_path | No | ./downloads |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (downloads a PDF, saves to a directory, returns the path) and the default save location. However, it omits error handling, network prerequisites, overwrite behavior, and file naming, which are relevant for a download tool.
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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for the main purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line adds value and 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 straightforward download tool, the description covers the essential context: parameters, default behavior, and return value. Minor gaps exist, such as not specifying the exact filename or whether the save directory is auto-created, but these are not critical for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema provides no descriptions for either parameter, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining paper_id with an example ('2106.12345') and save_path with a default value ('./downloads'). This gives clear, actionable meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Download PDF of an arXiv paper,' which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling download tools for other repositories (e.g., download_biorxiv, download_medrxiv) by naming the exact source.
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 usage for arXiv papers based on the resource name and tool name, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling functions are present.
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.
Multiple tools appear to serve the same purpose, such as search_arxiv and search-arxiv, or papers-search-basic, paper-search-advanced, search_papers, and search. The download/read tools for different sources follow similar patterns, but some return 'not supported' messages, making it unclear which tools are actually functional.
Tool names mix snake_case, kebab-case, and bare verbs without a consistent pattern. For example, about_nanci, analysis-citation-network, download-full-paper-arxiv, fetch, and search_arxiv all coexist, and the same action for different sources alternates conventions (search-arxiv vs search_arxiv).
With 53 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped. Many tools are redundant or near-duplicates, such as six source-specific search tools plus an aggregate search, and the inclusion of both paper and clinical trial tools in one server creates unnecessary bloat.
The server covers a wide range of research workflows, including search, download, read, citations, authors, and clinical trials. However, several tools (crossref/pubmed download/read) are non-functional dead ends, and the redundancy makes it harder to navigate the surface.