Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
eprintdl

eprintdl

by Jiangjiang-jiang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Library status

eprint_status

Check local ePrint library and configuration status to see record counts, downloaded/failed/pending papers, yearly progress, and PDF count and disk usage.

Instructions

返回本地库与配置状态：记录数、已下载/失败/待下载、各年份进度、磁盘上 PDF 数量与体积。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "eprint_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does convey that the tool only reports local library/configuration state, implying a non-destructive read, and it lists the reported dimensions. It does not state whether any network access occurs, whether the call is expensive on large libraries, or how results are formatted for very large collections.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the purpose and then the concrete fields returned; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the response contains, which is the main thing an agent needs for a zero-parameter status tool. It stops short of describing the return structure (flat vs. nested, units of the size figure), leaving a small gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it does not waste space restating an empty schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource: it returns the local library and configuration status, then enumerates exactly which status fields (record count, downloaded/failed/pending, per-year progress, PDF count and size on disk). Easily distinguished from siblings eprint_search, eprint_download and eprint_verify, which act on remote data rather than reporting local state.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the diagnostic tool to call to inspect library state, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before/after eprint_download) or what alternatives exist. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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