Pull a specific section such as Abstract, Introduction, or Conclusion from an arXiv paper by giving its ID and section name.
Extract a specific section (e.g., Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion) from a paper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | ||
| section_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how missing/unnamed sections are handled, or what happens when section_name doesn't match a known heading. With an output schema present the return format is partly covered, but behavioral gaps remain.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the clarifying examples inline. Nothing is padded, though there is very little content overall.
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 two-parameter extraction tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action but omits edge-case behavior (section not found, paper not found) and valid section_name values beyond three examples. Adequate but with clear 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful examples for section_name (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion), which is genuinely additive, but says nothing about paper_id format or whether section matching is fuzzy or exact.
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?
States a specific verb (Extract) and resource (a specific section of a paper), and the parenthetical examples make the scope concrete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_paper_fulltext, so it stops short of 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternative (get_paper_fulltext, which presumably returns the whole paper) is never mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the targeted alternative to full-text retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.