Read and extract text content from a bioRxiv paper PDF.
Args:
paper_id: bioRxiv DOI.
save_path: Directory where the PDF is/will be saved (default: './downloads').
Returns:
str: The extracted text content of the paper.
| 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 that the PDF may be saved to save_path ('is/will be saved'), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention network dependencies, error conditions, or potential side effects beyond file saving.
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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence, then an Args list and Returns line. Every element is relevant, front-loaded, and no unnecessary details are included.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, parameter meanings, and return type. Minor gaps include not explaining whether the tool always downloads the PDF or uses an existing file, and no mention of error handling, but it remains mostly complete for typical use.
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 compensate. It explains paper_id as 'bioRxiv DOI' and save_path as 'directory where the PDF is/will be saved' with a default, adding meaningful clarity beyond the schema's bare type definitions.
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 the tool's function: 'Read and extract text content from a bioRxiv paper PDF.' The specific resource (bioRxiv paper) and action (read/extract) differentiate it from sibling tools like download_biorxiv and search_biorxiv.
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 provides clear context by specifying it operates on bioRxiv DOI and saves/reads from a directory. It implies when to use it (for extracting text from bioRxiv papers) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use download_biorxiv to download only.'
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.