Download PDF of a bioRxiv paper.
Args:
paper_id: bioRxiv DOI.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the core behavior (downloads a PDF, saves it, returns the path) but omits potential side effects such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, network/authentication requirements, or error behaviors. This is adequate but not rich.
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, structured with Args and Returns, and contains no fluff. Every line provides necessary information, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 description covers inputs, the action, and the return value, which is adequate for a simple tool. Minor gaps include not mentioning whether the .pdf extension is added automatically, whether directories are created, or how errors are handled, but these are not critical 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?
The description fully explains both parameters: paper_id as a bioRxiv DOI and save_path as the destination directory with a default. Since the schema provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), the description compensates completely, adding meaning beyond the minimal schema fields.
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 starts with 'Download PDF of a bioRxiv paper,' clearly stating the action and resource. This differentiates it from sibling download tools for other repositories (e.g., download_arxiv, download_medrxiv) and read tools (e.g., read_biorxiv_paper).
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 clearly implies usage when a bioRxiv PDF needs to be saved, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool. It does not contrast with read_biorxiv_paper or other download tools, beyond what the name itself implies.
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.