Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arxiv-mcp

arxiv-mcp

by evangit2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Corpus Lookup

corpus_lookup

Look up a single arXiv paper's metadata from a Hugging Face snapshot without downloading the dataset, returning title, abstract, license, categories, version dates, and file locations.

Instructions

Look up one paper in the secemp9/arxiv-complete HF snapshot. No key needed.

Uses the free Hugging Face datasets-server filter API (metadata config only) — no 16 TB download. Returns the corpus metadata row for the paper (title, abstract, licence, categories, version dates) plus pointers to where its files live in the snapshot.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "corpus_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: free HF datasets-server filter API, metadata config only, no key required, no full snapshot download. However it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown or malformed paper_id, rate limits, or whether results are cached — gaps that matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

The two sentences are front-loaded with the action and corpus, then justify the lightweight approach. Minimal waste, though the parenthetical "(metadata config only)" is slightly jargon-heavy for the value it adds.

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 the description needn't enumerate return values, and it nonetheless sketches them (title, abstract, licence, categories, version dates, file pointers). For a one-parameter read tool the remaining gap is the paper_id format and not-found behavior, not the return contract.

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?

There is a single required paper_id with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply the format — but it only says "one paper" without specifying whether it takes a bare arXiv ID, a versioned ID, or an HF row identifier. The reader is left to guess the accepted identifier syntax.

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?

"Look up one paper in the secemp9/arxiv-complete HF snapshot" gives a specific verb (look up), a singular scope (one paper), and the exact corpus it operates on. It is clear enough to distinguish from a plural search tool by scope alone, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like get_paper, which reads very similarly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the tool is for retrieving a single known paper, and the "no key needed / no 16 TB download" framing hints it is the cheap path for one record. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among get_paper, extract_paper, or search_papers.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools