Search academic papers from arXiv.
Args:
query: Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning').
max_results: Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10).
Returns:
List of paper metadata in dictionary format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
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 must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the return type (list of paper metadata) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a no-annotation tool, making transparency weak.
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 six lines: a front-loaded purpose, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 search tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, given the large number of sibling search tools, some additional context about scope or differences (e.g., metadata-only vs full-text) would improve completeness.
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 zero description coverage, and the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining 'query' (search query string with example) and 'max_results' (maximum number of papers with default). This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the structural schema fields.
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 'Search academic papers from arXiv,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'search-arxiv' (hyphenated), so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-arxiv, papers-search-basic, or paper-search-advanced. It simply states what the tool does without any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.
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.