Search academic papers from bioRxiv.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and return type, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, any authentication/rate-limit constraints, or pagination behavior. This leaves the agent without advanced behavioral context.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clearly structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, with no redundant text. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two simple parameters.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return format clearly, but it only states 'List of paper metadata in dictionary format' without specifying the dictionary fields. The absence of usage context and behavioral details also limits completeness, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.
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?
Although the input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), the description adds meaningful parameter details: 'query: Search query string (e.g., 'machine learning')' and 'max_results: Maximum number of papers to return (default: 10)'. This goes beyond the schema's type information and includes an example and default value.
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 a clear verb+resource statement: 'Search academic papers from bioRxiv.' This makes the tool's purpose evident and distinguishes it from sibling tools for other repositories (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed). The Args and Returns sections further clarify the scope.
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 implies usage for bioRxiv searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_arxiv or download_biorxiv. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. An agent must infer from the tool name and the word 'bioRxiv'.
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.