Read and extract text content from a PubMed paper.
Args:
paper_id: PubMed ID (PMID).
save_path: Directory where the PDF would be saved (unused).
Returns:
str: Message indicating that direct paper reading 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The Returns line does disclose that direct paper reading is not supported and that it returns a message to that effect—useful transparency. However, this contradicts the opening sentence, creating internal inconsistency that undermines trust in the behavioral description.
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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections, wasting few words. However, the misleading first sentence detracts from overall clarity, preventing a perfect score.
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?
Given the tool is essentially a stub, the description omits crucial context: why reading is unsupported, what alternatives exist, and what the user should do instead. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without enough guidance to use the tool effectively.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates by explaining paper_id as 'PubMed ID (PMID)' and save_path as 'unused'. This adds practical value beyond the raw schema, even though save_path is documented as unused rather than functional.
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 opens with 'Read and extract text content from a PubMed paper', a clear verb+resource, but the Returns section explicitly states 'direct paper reading is not supported.' This directly contradicts the stated purpose, making the tool's actual function ambiguous and misleading. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling read_* tools like read_arxiv_paper or read_medrxiv_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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since the tool does not support reading, it should explicitly direct users to alternatives such as download_pubmed or get_paper_abstract, but no such advice is 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.