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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.