Paper Distill MCP Server

generate_digest

Generates daily output files (JSON dataset, Astro site data, Obsidian notes) from final paper selections and annotations for streamlined literature management.

Instructions

Generate all daily output files (pushes.jsonl, papers.jsonl, Astro site JSON, Obsidian notes).

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": {
      "papers": "<papers>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "generate_digest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Date string in YYYY-MM-DD format
`papers`	Yes	Final selected papers with annotations
`topics`	No	Optional topics data for research note generation

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedMay 1, 2026
Removedv0.2.2May 1, 2026
First observedv0.2.4Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and behavioral traits. It does not mention whether files are overwritten, state is modified, or what happens with empty inputs. The description is insufficient for safe usage.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output artifacts.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks information about prerequisites, return format, or order of operations. For a tool generating multiple files, more context is needed for complete understanding.

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 adequately. The description adds no significant value beyond listing outputs; it does not explain how parameters relate to generation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'generate' and specifies the exact output files: pushes.jsonl, papers.jsonl, Astro site JSON, Obsidian notes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_topic or rank_papers which have different functions.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, no prerequisites or post-conditions, and no mention of workflow dependencies. It lacks context for correct invocation.

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