Attempt to download PDF of a PubMed paper.
Args:
paper_id: PubMed ID (PMID).
save_path: Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads').
Returns:
str: Message indicating that direct PDF download is not supported.
| 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 carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that 'direct PDF download is not supported' and that the return value is a string message indicating that. This is a critical behavioral disclosure that informs the agent the tool will not actually download anything.
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 uses structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the 'Attempt to download' phrasing combined with the unsupported return message could be tightened for clarity.
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 explains the tool's immediate behavior but lacks contextual completeness. It does not suggest alternative tools, explain why direct download is unsupported, or provide any steps for the agent to achieve the user's goal. With no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the agent without guidance on what to do next.
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 0%, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It does so by identifying paper_id as a PubMed ID (PMID) and save_path as a directory with a default value. This adds value beyond the bare schema titles.
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 states a specific action ('download PDF of a PubMed paper') and names the resource, so it is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from sibling download tools, and the Returns section reveals the tool only reports that direct download is unsupported, making the actual purpose ambiguous.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_pubmed_paper or other download tools. The description lacks any usage context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
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.