arXiv MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.