xpay Academic Research Collection

download_semantic

Download PDF of a Semantic Scholar paper.

Args:
    paper_id: Semantic Scholar paper ID, Paper identifier in one of the following formats:
        - Semantic Scholar ID (e.g., "649def34f8be52c8b66281af98ae884c09aef38b")
        - DOI:<doi> (e.g., "DOI:10.18653/v1/N18-3011")
        - ARXIV:<id> (e.g., "ARXIV:2106.15928")
        - MAG:<id> (e.g., "MAG:112218234")
        - ACL:<id> (e.g., "ACL:W12-3903")
        - PMID:<id> (e.g., "PMID:19872477")
        - PMCID:<id> (e.g., "PMCID:2323736")
        - URL:<url> (e.g., "URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15928v1")
    save_path: Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads').
Returns:
    Path to the downloaded PDF file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper_id`	Yes
`save_path`	No		./downloads

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the action (downloads a PDF), the argument formats, and the return value (path to downloaded file). It does not disclose potential side effects like file creation/overwriting, directory creation, error handling, or permission requirements. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections. The format list is long but necessary for usability. The prose is efficient, though the list could be slightly more compact (e.g., using commas). Overall, every part earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has minimal schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the two parameters and the return value, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks discussion of error cases or behavior when the paper is inaccessible, but for a straightforward download tool this is a reasonable level of completeness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully. It exhaustively enumerates the accepted formats for paper_id (Semantic Scholar ID, DOI, ARXIV, MAG, ACL, PMID, PMCID, URL) and specifies the default for save_path. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download PDF of a Semantic Scholar paper.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling download tools for arXiv, bioRxiv, PubMed, etc. The title and name are not tautological; the description adds the 'PDF' aspect.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage: use this when you need a PDF from Semantic Scholar, given a paper ID in one of the listed formats. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'for arXiv papers, use download_arxiv.' The guidance is clear but not explicit about exclusions.

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

All xpay Academic Research Collection tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

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.

Naming Consistency1/5

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).

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?