Search for papers on arXiv using their API
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query for arXiv papers | |
| start | No | Starting index for pagination | |
| sortBy | No | Sort order for results | relevance |
| sortOrder | No | Sort direction | descending |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return (max 100) | |
| searchType | No | Type of search to perform | all |
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 only mentions 'using their API' but doesn't describe rate limits, error handling, return format, or any side effects. This is a search operation, but the safety profile isn't confirmed.
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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and resource. It's concise but perhaps too sparse, though that's more an issue for other dimensions. For this dimension, it earns points for efficiency.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't mention what the result contains, pagination behavior, or any specifics about search types or sort orders. The tool is more complex than the description implies.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is comprehensive.
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 searches for papers on arXiv via their API. It's specific about the resource (arXiv papers) and the action (search), which differentiates it from generic search tools, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar arXiv-specific siblings like 'search_arxiv'.
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 like search_biorxiv or paper-search-advanced. There are no stated exclusions or context cues. The only implication is that it's for arXiv, but that's minimal.
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.