arXiv MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.