Skip to main content
Glama

get_recent_ai_papers

Retrieve recent AI research papers from arXiv's cs.AI category to stay informed about new developments in artificial intelligence.

Instructions

获取 arXiv AI 领域最新论文(cs.AI/recent)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that fetches the HTML content of recent papers from arXiv cs.AI/recent category.
    async function getRecentAIPapers(): Promise<string> {
      try {
        const url = 'https://arxiv.org/list/cs.AI/recent';
        console.log(`正在获取 AI 领域最新论文: ${url}`);
    
        const response = await axios({
          method: 'GET',
          url: url,
          timeout: 30000,
          headers: {
            'User-Agent': 'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; ArXiv-Paper-MCP/1.0)'
          }
        });
    
        return response.data;
      } catch (error) {
        console.error("获取最新 AI 论文时出错:", error);
        throw new Error(`获取最新论文失败: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:343-351 (registration)
    Tool registration entry in the ListTools handler, defining name, description, and input schema (no inputs).
    {
      name: "get_recent_ai_papers",
      description: "获取 arXiv AI 领域最新论文(cs.AI/recent)",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: []
      }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the tool (empty object, no required properties).
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {},
      required: []
    }
  • Dispatch handler in CallToolRequestSchema that invokes the getRecentAIPapers function and formats the response.
    case "get_recent_ai_papers": {
      const htmlContent = await getRecentAIPapers();
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: htmlContent
        }]
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches recent papers but doesn't describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, return format (e.g., list of papers with metadata), pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format, error handling, or usage constraints, which are important for complete contextual understanding. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what is returned, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by specifying the arXiv category (cs.AI/recent), which isn't in the schema. This earns a baseline score of 4 for parameter semantics, as it compensates appropriately for the lack of parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('arXiv AI 领域最新论文' meaning 'latest arXiv AI papers'), specifying the exact arXiv category (cs.AI/recent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' by focusing on recent papers rather than search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_arxiv_pdf_url' or 'parse_paper_content', keeping it from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving recent AI papers from arXiv, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_arxiv' for broader searches or 'get_arxiv_pdf_url' for specific PDFs. The context is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, resulting in an implied usage score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bach-Arxiv-Paper-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server