Este proyecto es un servidor MCP (Protocolo de Contexto Modelo) creado para interactuar con la vasta base de datos de artículos de arXiv.org.
Permite a clientes como Claude AI buscar, explorar y comparar artículos de arXiv de forma eficiente, todo a través de un servidor local personalizado. Está desarrollado con Python y el framework FastMCP , y utiliza uv para una gestión de paquetes ligera.
Búsqueda de artículos por palabras clave
Busque artículos de arXiv por palabras clave, con opciones para ordenar por relevancia o más reciente.
📚 Últimos artículos por categoría
Especifique un código de categoría de arXiv (por ejemplo, cs.AI , math.AP ) para obtener los artículos más recientes en ese campo.
📄 Búsqueda de detalles del documento
Obtenga metadatos detallados utilizando el ID de arXiv de un artículo: título, autores, resumen, categorías, DOI, enlace PDF y más.
Búsqueda de artículos por autor
Recupere una lista de artículos publicados por un autor específico.
📊 Análisis de tendencias (experimental)
Obtenga una descripción general de palabras clave o temas de tendencia según artículos recientes en una categoría (actualmente utiliza datos simulados).
Generador de indicaciones para resúmenes
Genere dinámicamente indicaciones que ayuden a los LLM a resumir un documento seleccionado de manera más efectiva.
Generador de indicaciones de comparación
Proporcione dos identificaciones de papel para generar una solicitud estructurada para comparar su contenido.
Related MCP server: scholar-search-mcp
Python 3.11+
uv (para gestión de dependencias y entorno)
solicitudes (para comunicación API)
xml.etree.ElementTree (para analizar respuestas XML)
Para instalar automáticamente arXiv Research Assistant MCP Server para Claude Desktop a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install arxiv-paper-mcp --client claudeuv pip install arxiv-paper-mcpgit clone https://github.com/daheepk/arxiv-mcp-server.git
cd arxiv-mcp-serverUtilice uv para instalar todas las dependencias en modo editable:
uv pip install -e .arxiv-paper-mcpPara utilizar este servidor MCP con Claude, agregue la siguiente configuración JSON a la configuración MCP de Claude:
{
"mcpServers": {
"arXivPaper": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"tool",
"run",
"arxiv-paper-mcp"
]
}
}
}arxiv-mcp-server/
├── arxiv_mcp/ # Main package
│ ├── __init__.py
│ ├── app.py # FastMCP app setup
│ ├── server.py # Server entry point
│ ├── utils.py # arXiv API communication logic
│ ├── resources/ # MCP resources (categories, authors, etc.)
│ ├── tools/ # MCP tools (search, detail lookup, trends)
│ └── prompts/ # Prompt templates (summarize, compare)
├── pyproject.toml # Project config & dependencies
└── README.md # This file특정 카테고리의 최신 트렌드를 분석합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | cs.AI | |
| days | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions analyzing trends without detailing how it works, what data it accesses, potential limitations, or output format. It lacks critical behavioral traits like data sources, processing methods, or any constraints.
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, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured if it included additional details. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for its limited content.
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?
Given the complexity of a trend analysis tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' involves, what the output looks like, or how parameters affect the analysis. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specific category' which relates to the 'category' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'days' parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema's basic titles. This leaves half the parameters inadequately described.
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 the purpose ('analyze trends') and specifies a resource ('specific category'), but it's vague about what 'analyze' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'search_papers' or 'scrape_recent_category_papers'. It provides a basic function but lacks specificity about the analysis scope or output.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers' or 'scrape_recent_category_papers'. The description implies usage for trend analysis in a category, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
논문 ID로 상세 정보를 가져옵니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets detailed information' but doesn't describe what that includes (e.g., title, authors, abstract), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining the tool's function.
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?
Given the complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, error handling, or return format, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions '논문 ID' (paper ID) as the parameter, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'paper_id' property. However, it doesn't explain the format, constraints, or examples (e.g., numeric, alphanumeric, DOI), leaving the parameter poorly documented.
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 the purpose: '논문 ID로 상세 정보를 가져옵니다' (Get detailed information by paper ID). It specifies a verb ('가져옵니다' - get/fetch) and resource ('상세 정보' - detailed information), but is vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'scrape_recent_category_papers'.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a paper ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_papers' (which might retrieve multiple papers) or 'scrape_recent_category_papers' (which might fetch recent papers by category).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
[크롤링] 특정 카테고리의 'recent' 페이지를 스크랩하여 최신 논문 목록을 가져옵니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scraping, implying network operations and potential rate limits or permissions, but doesn't detail these aspects, response format, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('scrape') and purpose. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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?
Given the complexity of a scraping tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error cases, and integration with siblings, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.
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 for undocumented parameters. It implies 'category' is used to specify the target and 'max_results' limits output, but doesn't explain valid categories, format, or constraints. This adds some meaning but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.
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's purpose: it scrapes a 'recent' page for a specific category to fetch the latest paper list. It uses specific verbs ('scrape', 'fetch') and identifies the resource ('recent page', 'paper list'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers' or 'get_paper_info', which might handle similar data differently.
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 alternatives. It mentions scraping a 'recent' page, but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'search_papers' or 'analyze_trends'. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
키워드로 arXiv 논문을 검색합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching arXiv papers by keyword but lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination, or error handling. This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 only mentions '키워드' (keyword) implicitly, without explaining the 'max_results' parameter or providing any additional context like format constraints or usage examples. This fails to address the undocumented parameters adequately.
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 action ('검색합니다' - searches) and resource ('arXiv 논문' - arXiv papers) with a specific method ('키워드로' - by keyword). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'scrape_recent_category_papers' or 'get_paper_info', but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrape_recent_category_papers' or 'get_paper_info'. The description implies usage for keyword-based searches but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0analyze_trendsget_paper_infoscrape_recent_category_paperssearch_papersScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze_trends focuses on trends analysis, get_paper_info retrieves detailed paper information, scrape_recent_category_papers scrapes recent papers from a category, and search_papers searches by keywords. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.
The tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern and use descriptive verbs (analyze, get, scrape, search). However, scrape_recent_category_papers includes a Korean annotation '[크롤링]' in its description, which slightly deviates from the pure English naming convention, though this does not affect the tool name itself.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for an arXiv research assistant, covering key operations like searching, scraping, analyzing trends, and fetching details. It is slightly lean but reasonable, as it handles core research workflows without unnecessary bloat.
The toolset covers essential functions for arXiv research, including search, scrape, analysis, and info retrieval. However, there are minor gaps such as no tools for filtering or sorting results, managing user preferences, or accessing advanced arXiv features like citation tracking, which could limit agent capabilities in complex scenarios.
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
Academic research MCP server for paper search, citation checks, graphs, and deep research.
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
Augments MCP Server - A comprehensive framework documentation provider for Claude Code
