arXiv MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.