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 pagination behavior (page, page_size with max 50) and sort options, which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'search' implies read-only).

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 for Args and Returns. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative. The opening sentence efficiently states the purpose. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading more context about when to use this versus other search tools.

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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job with parameters but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns at a high level but doesn't detail the response structure or error handling. The lack of usage guidelines relative to siblings is a significant completeness gap given the tool ecosystem.

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 provides comprehensive parameter documentation that fully compensates. It explains each of the 10 parameters with clear semantics, including format requirements (YYYY-MM-DD), default values, constraints (max 50 for page_size), and enum values for sort_by. This adds significant 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 performs 'Advanced search with specific field filters' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the simpler 'search' sibling tool by emphasizing 'advanced' capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'getRecent' or 'getPaper'.

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 the simpler 'search' sibling or other alternatives like 'getRecent' or 'getPaper'. It mentions 'advanced search' but doesn't explain what makes it advanced compared to basic search or when field filtering is preferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.