arXiv MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (getContent vs getPaper, search vs searchAdvanced), but there's significant overlap between 'search' and 'searchAdvanced' where both return search results with similar parameters. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent might struggle to choose between them for basic searches.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (getContent, getPaper, getRecent, listCategories, search, searchAdvanced). All tools use camelCase consistently, with 'searchAdvanced' being the only deviation from pure verb_noun structure, but it's still readable and follows the same casing convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this is well-scoped for an arXiv server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the paper discovery and retrieval workflow, from browsing categories to getting full content. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core arXiv operations well: discovery (search, getRecent, listCategories), metadata retrieval (getPaper), and content access (getContent). Minor gaps include no paper submission/update tools (though arXiv is primarily read-only) and no citation or related paper features, but these aren't critical for typical agent workflows.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions default values and max page size, which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed given there's no output schema. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (rate limits, auth), usage guidance relative to siblings, and detailed return format. The 'Returns' section is minimal, which is problematic without an output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing clear semantics for all 6 parameters. It explains what each parameter does, provides examples for 'query' and 'category', specifies defaults for 'sort_by', 'page', and 'page_size', and notes the max value for 'page_size'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search arXiv for papers matching the query.' This specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('arXiv papers'), and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchAdvanced' or 'getRecent', which would require a 5.
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 like 'searchAdvanced' or 'getRecent'. It lists parameters but doesn't explain the tool's role in the broader context of sibling tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions default values and a maximum count ('max 50'), which adds some context, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral traits, and output specifics. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but the basic structure keeps it from being incomplete.
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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'category' is an 'arXiv category code' with a default, and 'count' is the 'Number of papers to retrieve' with a max and default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail category code formats or retrieval logic fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get recent papers from a specific arXiv category.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('recent papers'), and scope ('from a specific arXiv category'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'searchAdvanced', which might also retrieve papers, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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. With siblings like 'search', 'searchAdvanced', 'getPaper', and 'getContent', there's no indication of scenarios where 'getRecent' is preferred (e.g., for time-based retrieval vs. keyword-based searches) or any prerequisites. This lack of context leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior (page, page_size with max 50) and sort options, which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'search' implies read-only).
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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative. The opening sentence efficiently states the purpose. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading more context about when to use this versus other search tools.
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?
For a 10-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job with parameters but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns at a high level but doesn't detail the response structure or error handling. The lack of usage guidelines relative to siblings is a significant completeness gap given the tool ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation that fully compensates. It explains each of the 10 parameters with clear semantics, including format requirements (YYYY-MM-DD), default values, constraints (max 50 for page_size), and enum values for sort_by. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'Advanced search with specific field filters' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the simpler 'search' sibling tool by emphasizing 'advanced' capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'getRecent' or 'getPaper'.
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 the simpler 'search' sibling or other alternatives like 'getRecent' or 'getPaper'. It mentions 'advanced search' but doesn't explain what makes it advanced compared to basic search or when field filtering is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('List of arXiv categories with code, name, and group'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether the list is static/dynamic. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear 'Returns:' section detailing the output format. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema will document return values, so the description needn't explain them in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., caching, freshness). The description covers the essentials but has minor gaps.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all common arXiv categories' specifies the verb (list) and resource (arXiv categories). It distinguishes from siblings like getPaper or search by focusing on category metadata rather than paper content or search operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., getContent could potentially overlap).
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or contrast with sibling tools like getRecent or searchAdvanced. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs/URLs. The description only states what it returns, not how it behaves.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, the second explains the parameter, and the third outlines the return data. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the parameter semantics well and lists return fields, but lacks behavioral context like error handling or operational constraints, which is important for a tool interacting with an external API.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'id_or_url' accepts either an arXiv paper ID (with an example '2301.00001') or a full arXiv URL, clarifying the parameter's purpose and format that the schema alone doesn't provide.
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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific arXiv paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getRecent (recent papers), listCategories (categories), and search/searchAdvanced (searching). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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 implies usage context by specifying 'a specific arXiv paper,' suggesting this tool is for known papers rather than discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like getContent (which might fetch full text) or search (for unknown papers), leaving some guidance gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool fetches content via Jina Reader and returns markdown, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it caches results. It adds some behavioral context but lacks details on operational constraints.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains the parameter, and the third specifies the output format. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching content from arXiv), no annotations, and an output schema that likely defines the return structure, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and output format, but could improve by adding usage guidelines relative to siblings and more behavioral details like error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter 'id_or_url' as an arXiv paper ID or full URL, with an example ('2301.00001'), adding crucial meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. This fully addresses the parameter's purpose and format.
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 specific action ('Get the full text content') and resource ('an arXiv paper'), using the Jina Reader service. It distinguishes from siblings like getPaper (likely metadata), getRecent (recent papers), listCategories (categories), and search/searchAdvanced (searching rather than retrieving full content).
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 implies usage when full text content in markdown format is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPaper (which might return metadata only). It provides context about using Jina Reader but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![arXiv-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ray0907/arXiv-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ray0907/arXiv-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![arXiv-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ray0907/arXiv-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ray0907/arXiv-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Ray0907/arXiv-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server