get_paper_detailsGet complete metadata and abstract for any arXiv paper by entering its unique ID, enabling quick access to essential research details.
Retrieve full metadata and abstract for a specific arXiv ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arxiv_id | Yes | The unique arXiv ID (e.g., '1706.03762' or '2310.06825'). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden of disclosing behavior. 'Retrieve' correctly implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not mention behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or other operational traits. For a simple fetch-by-ID tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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?
With only one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema available, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Return-value details are covered by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single arxiv_id parameter already has a descriptive schema with examples. The description's 'specific arXiv ID' adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('full metadata and abstract') for a specific arXiv ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_arxiv, which is for discovery rather than fetching a known paper.
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 phrase 'for a specific arXiv ID' clearly implies the appropriate context: use this when you already have the paper identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.