OpenPapers

Read paper

read_paper

Fetch and parse a research paper from a URL, extracting sections and references to support reproducible scholarly analysis.

Instructions

Acquire and parse a bounded HTML paper document with section and reference boundaries.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "read_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'acquire' (implying downloading) and 'bounded' (implying some size or scope limit), but it does not describe output format, failure modes, authentication needs, or what happens with non-HTML or unbounded documents.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler and gets to the point immediately. It is appropriately front-loaded, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important usage and output details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should state what the returned parsed result looks like or at least what an agent can do with it. It only vaguely gestures at 'section and reference boundaries' without explaining the return structure, limits, or when this tool is preferable to siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'HTML paper document' implies the url parameter should point to an HTML paper, and 'bounded' hints at size constraints. However, it never explicitly names url or explains what 'bounded' means in practical terms.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('Acquire and parse') and a specific resource ('bounded HTML paper document') with clear section and reference boundaries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paper or search_within_paper by indicating a structured parse operation rather than simple retrieval or search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from get_paper, search_papers, or extract_paper_facts. The usage context is only implied by the title and name, not stated.

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