arxiv-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

category_trends

Summarize recent submission volume and common title terms in an arXiv category to spot emerging research trends over a chosen time window.

Instructions

Summarise recent submission volume and the most common title terms in a category.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category`	Yes	arXiv category, e.g. 'cs.AI' or 'cs.LG'.
`sample_size`	No	How many recent papers to sample.
`window_days`	No	How far back to look.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sampled`	Yes	Papers examined (bounded by arXiv's page limit).
`category`	Yes	arXiv category, e.g. 'cs.AI'.
`window_days`	Yes	How many days back the sample covers.
`daily_counts`	Yes	ISO date -> number of submissions.
`top_title_terms`	Yes	[term, count] pairs from paper titles, most frequent first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is computed (volume and title-term frequency) but says nothing about data source, freshness, whether results are cached or sampled live, or limitations of using a recent sample; 'recent' is left ambiguous in the description despite window_days existing in the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the two key outputs. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be explained, and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the tool's purpose adequately for a simple summary operation, though it could add a brief note on recency or usage context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions 'recent' and 'category' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarise') and two concrete outputs (submission volume and common title terms) scoped to a category. This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling tools search_papers, get_paper, and get_pdf_text, which operate on individual papers rather than aggregate trends.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when the tool is useful (to get a category-level trend summary), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent can infer it is the aggregate-view counterpart to search_papers, but that routing is not stated.

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

Deploy Server