Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AtlasForge-WebProxy

AtlasForge-WebProxy

by DragonShadows1978
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

PaperFetch

Download an open-access paper PDF and extract full text. Returns local paths, SHA-256, and extracted text for verifying citations before quoting.

Instructions

Download an open-access paper PDF directly and extract full paper text when possible. Use this for arXiv/PDF paper sources before quoting a paper. Returns local artifact paths, SHA-256, page extraction metadata, and extracted text. This is separate from webpage WebFetch.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "PaperFetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPaper landing URL or direct PDF URL
max_charsNoMax extracted text chars to return; -1 for all extracted text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes extraction is conditional ('when possible') and lists return values, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential failure modes for non-open-access papers.

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?

Two sentences cover all essential information with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, while the second lists outputs concisely.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and returns. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds minor clarification (URL can be landing page or PDF) but does not significantly augment schema information.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool downloads open-access paper PDFs and extracts text. It specifies the resource (arXiv/PDF paper sources) and distinguishes from WebFetch, making its purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states to use this for arXiv/PDF paper sources before quoting a paper, providing clear context. However, it does not include when not to use it or alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools