Skip to main content
Glama
blazickjp

ArXiv MCP Server

by blazickjp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

check_alerts

Check all saved topic watches for new arXiv papers since the last check. Returns new paper counts and metadata per topic, with optional topic filtering.

Instructions

Check all saved topic watches for newly published papers since the last check. Omitting the topic parameter runs ALL saved watches and returns new papers for each. Passing a topic string checks only that specific watch. Advances each watch's drain cursor after running: when a page is truncated by max_results, has_more=true and check_start advances so later calls return the next papers in the same window (Atom date bounds alone are day-granular and would otherwise re-hit the boundary); last_checked tracks the newest returned paper. When the page is not full, last_checked becomes now and the drain cursor resets. Use watch_topic to register topics before calling this. Returns a clear not-found error if a topic is provided but no matching watch exists. Returns a summary with new paper counts, has_more, and full paper metadata per topic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoOptional: check only this specific watched topic (must match the topic string used in watch_topic exactly). Omit to check all saved watches.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.3
  2. Removedv0.6.1
  3. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses nontrivial behavioral details: the drain cursor advances, has_more/check_start/last_checked semantics, truncation behavior, cursor reset conditions, and not-found errors. These go far beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence contributes operational detail: purpose, parameter behavior, cursor mechanics, prerequisites, error cases, and return summary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the rest earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single optional parameter, no output schema, and stateful behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It explains how the tool mutates internal state across calls, what the client can expect in terms of pagination, error semantics, and the response summary.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Even though the schema already describes the topic parameter with 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantic nuance: omission runs all watches, a topic string must match exactly, and calling with a nonexistent topic yields a clear error. This meaningfully extends the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check all saved topic watches for newly published papers since the last check.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like watch_topic and search_papers by centering on alerting for saved watched topics, not general search or watch creation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear operational context: when to use it (checking saved watches for new papers) and a prerequisite ('Use watch_topic to register topics before calling'). It lacks explicit comparisons to alternatives, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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

Install Server

Other Tools