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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.