Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
papergraph-mcp

papergraph-mcp

by MahmoudSedky147
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

workspace_add_arxiv_paper

Add or replace an arXiv LaTeX paper in the active workspace by its arXiv ID, enabling it to be processed into a queryable theorem-proof dependency graph.

Instructions

Add or replace an arXiv LaTeX project in the active workspace.

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": {
      "arxiv_id": "<arxiv_id>"
    },
    "name": "workspace_add_arxiv_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refreshNo
arxiv_idYes
main_fileNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add or replace' signals a mutating operation and hints at overwrite behavior, but it does not explain side effects, whether the project is downloaded from arXiv, what happens to existing files, or whether an active workspace is required.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is well-formed and front-loaded, though very brief given the tool's parameter and behavioral complexity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this one-line description is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It should at least explain what refresh and main_file do and clarify the replacement semantics.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The tool name implies arxiv_id, but refresh and main_file are completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine their meaning or how they affect the operation.

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 states a specific verb ('Add or replace') and a specific resource ('arXiv LaTeX project') scoped to the active workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like workspace_add_local_paper and workspace_add_pdf_paper.

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 phrase 'in the active workspace' implies the tool operates on the currently open workspace, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as load_arxiv_paper, workspace_add_pdf_paper, or workspace_add_local_paper. Usage context is implied, not 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