arxiv-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_papers

Locate relevant academic research papers on arXiv. Enter keywords or use arXiv field syntax, then filter by category or sort the results.

Instructions

Search arXiv and return a page of matching papers.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search text. arXiv field syntax is supported, e.g. 'retrieval augmented generation', 'au:hinton AND cat:cs.NE', 'ti:"chain of thought"'.
`sort_by`	No	Ranking to apply.	relevance
`category`	No	Optional arXiv category filter, e.g. 'cs.AI'.
`max_results`	No	Page size.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	The query that produced this result.
`start`	Yes	Zero-based offset into the full result set.
`papers`	Yes	The papers in this page.
`sort_by`	Yes	Sort order arXiv applied.
`returned`	Yes	Number of papers actually returned in this page.
`total_results`	Yes	Total matches arXiv reports, ignoring pagination.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only paginated search by saying 'return a page', but does not disclose rate limits, arXiv API constraints, or pagination mechanics. This is minimally adequate for a simple read operation but leaves notable gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and result format efficiently.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple, the input schema is fully documented, and an output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could have added sibling-routing guidance.

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%, so the schema already documents query syntax, sort options, category filtering, and page size. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: search arXiv and return matching papers. An agent can distinguish it from get_paper and get_pdf_text, though the description does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and does not mention when to choose get_paper, get_pdf_text, or category_trends instead. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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

Deploy Server