Validate a raw arXiv request and load it only if unambiguous, turning the paper into a queryable theorem-proof dependency graph for exploring mathematical relationships.
Validate a raw arXiv request, then load it only if unambiguous.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | ||
| refresh | No | ||
| main_file | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a key trait: the load happens only when the request is unambiguous, implying validation failure or ambiguity blocks loading. But it does not describe error behavior, side effects of loading, or what happens on invalid input.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the validation-then-load sequence and the ambiguity condition, though 'it' is slightly ambiguous about whether the request or paper is loaded.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, this description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, failure behavior, and clear routing relative to the many sibling tools, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly in all cases.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the 'input' parameter via 'raw arXiv request'. The 'refresh' and 'main_file' parameters are completely unexplained in both the schema and description.
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 clearly states a specific action sequence: validate a raw arXiv request, then load it only if unambiguous. This distinguishes it from validation-only siblings and from loading already-validated papers, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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: when you have a raw arXiv request that needs validation before loading, and only when the request is unambiguous. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like validate_arxiv_request or load_arxiv_paper.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.