Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
freyzo

ArXiv MCP Server

by freyzo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

arXiv Deep Research

Install in VS Code Install in VS Code Insiders

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for searching, downloading, and reading arXiv papers — designed as a specialist agent for integration into multi-agent systems like Microsoft Magentic-UI and AutoGen.

The idea: Rather than treating arXiv search as a simple lookup tool, this server is structured as a first-class research agent — one you can plug directly into a Magentic-One-style team as an McpAgent, giving an Orchestrator access to the full scientific literature as a delegatable resource.

Integration with Magentic-UI

Magentic-UI supports custom McpAgent instances via mcp_agent_configs in its config file. This server plugs in directly:

# examples/magentic_ui_config.yaml
client:
  mcp_agent_configs:
    - agent_name: ArxivResearcher
      description: >
        Specialist agent for searching and reading arXiv papers.
        Use when the task requires finding academic papers, understanding
        research literature, or retrieving technical details from published work.
      server_params:
        type: StdioServerParams
        command: python
        args: ["-m", "arxiv_mcp_server"]
        env:
          PYTHONPATH: /path/to/arxiv-deep-research/src

Once registered, the Magentic-UI Orchestrator can delegate research subtasks to this agent through the standard Task Ledger / Progress Ledger pattern — exactly how WebSurfer handles web browsing, but for academic literature.

Related MCP server: ArXiv Paper MCP

Integration with AutoGen AgentChat

See examples/autogen_research_team.py for a complete 3-agent team:

Orchestrator (MagenticOneGroupChat)
├── ArxivSurfer  ← this MCP server, wrapped via StdioServerParams + mcp_server_tools
└── Coder        ← synthesizes findings into structured markdown reports
pip install "autogen-agentchat" "autogen-ext[openai]" "mcp>=1.2.0"
export OPENAI_API_KEY=...
python examples/autogen_research_team.py

Tools

Tool

Description

search_papers

Query arXiv with advanced filters: date range, category, sort by relevance or date

download_paper

Fetch a paper PDF and convert to clean markdown for LLM consumption

read_paper

Access previously downloaded paper content

list_papers

View all papers in local storage

search_papers

Supports rich query syntax — quoted phrases, boolean operators, field-specific search (ti:, au:, abs:), and category filtering:

{
  "query": "\"multi-agent\" AND \"orchestration\" ANDNOT survey",
  "max_results": 10,
  "date_from": "2024-01-01",
  "categories": ["cs.AI", "cs.MA"],
  "sort_by": "relevance"
}

Multi‑stage research pipeline

At a high level, arxiv-deep-research runs a simple but powerful multi‑stage loop:

  1. Plan the research task

    • A coordinator agent (for example the AutoGen MagenticOneGroupChat Orchestrator) takes the user goal and breaks it into sub‑tasks.

  2. Discover candidate papers

    • The coordinator calls the MCP search_papers tool to find relevant arXiv papers by topic, category, and date.

  3. Download and normalize content

    • For selected IDs, it calls download_paper, which fetches the PDF and converts it into clean markdown for LLMs to read.

  4. Deep paper analysis

    • The coordinator (or another agent) uses the deep-paper-analysis prompt to ask for a structured analysis of a given paper ID, optionally across multiple calls as you explore related work.

  5. Synthesis and reporting

    • A downstream agent such as Coder (in the AutoGen example) turns these analyses into a final research report: summaries, comparison tables, open problems, and next‑step suggestions.

You can run this pipeline manually by calling the tools and prompts from any MCP‑aware client, or automatically using the sample AutoGen team.

Evaluation Benchmark

The repo includes a retrieval quality benchmark (eval/benchmark.py) measuring:

  • Precision@K — fraction of top-K results that are relevant

  • Recall@K — fraction of known relevant papers found in top-K

  • MRR — Mean Reciprocal Rank of first relevant result

Ground-truth queries are seeded from landmark papers (AutoGen 2308.08155, Magentic-One 2411.04468, RAG 2005.11401, CoT 2201.11903) and can be extended automatically using the synthetic data pipeline below.

python eval/benchmark.py --k 10 --output results.json

Synthetic Eval Data Generation (AgentInstruct-style)

scripts/generate_eval_tasks.py implements a 4-stage pipeline that generates diverse benchmark queries from arXiv abstracts — mirroring the AgentInstruct approach:

Stage 1: Seed collection     → fetch paper abstracts from arXiv by category
Stage 2: Content transform   → extract key concepts and problem statements
Stage 3: Instruction gen     → generate realistic research queries via GPT-4o-mini
Stage 4: Instruction refine  → create harder variants at subtopic intersections
export OPENAI_API_KEY=...
python scripts/generate_eval_tasks.py --seed-category cs.AI --num-seeds 20 --output eval/generated_queries.json

Output includes easy/medium/hard difficulty tiers for stratified evaluation.

Observability: OpenTelemetry Tracing

Every tool call is instrumented with OpenTelemetry spans (mirrors AutoGen v0.4's built-in OTel support):

# Console output (no infrastructure needed)
export ARXIV_MCP_TRACE_CONSOLE=true
python -m arxiv_mcp_server

# OTLP export to Jaeger / Azure Monitor
docker run -d --name jaeger -p 16686:16686 -p 4317:4317 jaegertracing/all-in-one
export OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT=http://localhost:4317
export OTEL_SERVICE_NAME=arxiv-mcp-server
python -m arxiv_mcp_server
# View traces: http://localhost:16686

Spans recorded: mcp.tool.search_papers, mcp.tool.download_paper, mcp.tool.read_paper — each with query, categories, result count, latency, and error status as attributes.

Tracing is a zero-cost no-op when opentelemetry-sdk is not installed.

Installation

Requires Python 3.11+

git clone https://github.com/freyzo/arxiv-deep-research
cd arxiv-deep-research
python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e .

# Optional: OTel tracing
pip install -e ".[tracing]"

Claude Desktop

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "arxiv": {
      "command": "/path/to/.venv/bin/python",
      "args": ["-m", "arxiv_mcp_server", "--storage-path", "/path/to/papers"]
    }
  }
}

Cursor

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "arxiv": {
      "command": "python",
      "args": ["-m", "arxiv_mcp_server"],
      "env": { "PYTHONPATH": "/path/to/arxiv-deep-research/src" }
    }
  }
}

Prompts

deep-paper-analysis

Comprehensive analysis workflow covering executive summary, methodology, results, implications, and future directions:

{ "paper_id": "2401.12345" }

Running and resuming research sessions

There are two main ways to run research sessions today.

1. AutoGen multi‑agent team (recommended demo)

This uses OpenAI models to coordinate a full research workflow.

cd arxiv-deep-research
python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e .
pip install "autogen-agentchat" "autogen-ext[openai]" "mcp>=1.2.0"

export OPENAI_API_KEY=your_openai_key
python examples/autogen_research_team.py

This starts an interactive console UI where:

  • the Orchestrator plans the work,

  • ArxivSurfer searches and downloads papers via MCP, and

  • Coder writes the final markdown report.

To resume a session, you can:

  • run the script again and paste the previous summary as part of a new task, or

  • keep the same console session open and give the team a follow‑up instruction (for example, “Now focus on safety trade‑offs”).

2. Direct MCP usage from tools like Claude Desktop or Cursor

You can also talk to the MCP server directly and build your own loop:

cd arxiv-deep-research
python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e .

export ARXIV_MCP_TRACE_CONSOLE=true   # optional
python -m arxiv_mcp_server

While this server runs, any MCP‑aware client can:

  • call search_papers and download_paper,

  • use read_paper to pull content into the chat, and

  • call the deep-paper-analysis prompt multiple times.

The prompt handler keeps a simple global research context, so repeated calls in the same process will mention previously analyzed paper IDs and encourage the model to connect them. In practice, “resuming” a research session means:

  • keeping the same MCP server process alive, and

  • issuing new deep-paper-analysis calls for new paper IDs from the same client or workspace.

Repository Structure

arxiv-deep-research/
├── src/arxiv_mcp_server/
│   ├── server.py          # MCP server + OTel init
│   ├── tracing.py         # @trace_tool decorator, OTLP + console exporters
│   ├── config.py
│   ├── tools/             # search, download, read, list
│   └── prompts/           # deep research analysis prompt
├── examples/
│   ├── autogen_research_team.py   # Magentic-One-style 3-agent team
│   └── magentic_ui_config.yaml    # McpAgent config for Magentic-UI
├── eval/
│   └── benchmark.py       # Precision@K / Recall@K / MRR harness
├── scripts/
│   └── generate_eval_tasks.py     # AgentInstruct-style query generator
└── pyproject.toml

Environment Variables

Variable

Default

Description

ARXIV_STORAGE_PATH

~/.arxiv-mcp-server/papers

Paper storage location

ARXIV_MCP_TRACE_CONSOLE

false

Enable console trace output

OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT

—

OTLP endpoint (e.g. http://localhost:4317)

OTEL_SERVICE_NAME

arxiv-mcp-server

Service name in traces

If you use the optional eval data generator, you also need:

Variable

Description

OPENAI_API_KEY

Used by scripts/generate_eval_tasks.py to talk to gpt-4o-mini

Known issues

  • Model support is OpenAI‑only today.

    • The AutoGen research team and the synthetic eval generator both call OpenAI models (gpt-4o / gpt-4o-mini) via the OpenAI Python SDK.

    • There is no first‑class google-genai / Gemini or Gemma integration yet, even though the design would support it.

  • No MCP Resources yet.

    • Papers are exposed only via tools (read_paper) rather than as MCP Resources with stable arxiv:// URIs. MCP clients that prefer Resources cannot list papers yet.

  • Limited testing.

    • The core retrieval and eval logic has very light automated testing; metric functions and tool handlers should gain unit tests over time.

Roadmap

Planned improvements (subject to change):

  • Gemini / Gemma support via google-genai

    • Add an optional google-genai dependency and a small runner that can call Gemini/Gemma models using GEMINI_API_KEY.

    • Expose this as an alternative backend for the research team demo and the eval generator.

  • MCP Resources for downloaded papers

    • Implement list_resources / read_resource so downloaded PDFs appear as arxiv://paper_id resources in MCP clients.

  • Stronger testing and evals

    • Add unit tests for metrics, search helpers, and prompt handlers.

    • Automate running eval/benchmark.py and track regression over time.

  • Richer research sessions

    • Replace the simple global research context with explicit session IDs and persisted state, so “resume session X” becomes a first‑class feature across restarts.

Available Tools

4 tools
download_paperC

Download a paper and create a resource for it

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYesThe arXiv ID of the paper to download
check_statusNoIf true, only check conversion status without downloading

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 'download a paper and create a resource', implying a write operation, but doesn't specify details like file format, storage location, permissions required, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action ('download a paper') and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (involving download and resource creation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'create a resource' entails, potential side effects, or return values. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool fully.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('paper_id' and 'check_status'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the resource creation process or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('download a paper') and resource ('create a resource for it'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_paper' or 'list_papers', which might involve similar paper-related operations without the download aspect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_paper' or 'search_papers'. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid arXiv ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for checking status only). 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.

list_papersA

List all existing papers available as resources

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the operation is read-only, whether pagination exists, or any limits, which is insufficient for a listing tool.

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 unnecessary words. Every word is meaningful and succinct.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by describing return format or behavior. It only states 'papers' without any detail on what fields or structure is returned, leaving significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the scope ('all existing papers, available as resources'), which is not present in the empty schema.

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?

The description 'List all existing papers available as resources' clearly states the action (list) and resource (papers), differentiating from siblings get_paper_content and search_papers which focus on individual paper content or search.

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 usage for obtaining a list of all papers, but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

read_paperC

Read the full content of a stored paper in markdown format

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYesThe arXiv ID of the paper to read

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, error handling (e.g., for invalid paper_id), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not confirmed). More context is needed for a mutation-sensitive agent.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the output format. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves content. It lacks details on return values (e.g., markdown structure, error responses), behavioral context, or usage relative to siblings, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'paper_id' fully documented as 'The arXiv ID of the paper to read'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('read the full content') and resource ('stored paper'), specifying the output format ('in markdown format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_paper' (which might retrieve files) and 'list_papers'/'search_papers' (which list or search metadata), but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_paper' (e.g., for raw files vs. markdown content) or 'list_papers'/'search_papers' (e.g., for browsing vs. reading). The description implies usage for accessing content but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

search_papersA

Search for papers on arXiv with advanced filtering and query optimization.

QUERY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES:

  • Use QUOTED PHRASES for exact matches: "multi-agent systems", "neural networks", "machine learning"

  • Combine related concepts with OR: "AI agents" OR "software agents" OR "intelligent agents"

  • Use field-specific searches for precision:

    • ti:"exact title phrase" - search in titles only

    • au:"author name" - search by author

    • abs:"keyword" - search in abstracts only

  • Use ANDNOT to exclude unwanted results: "machine learning" ANDNOT "survey"

  • For best results, use 2-4 core concepts rather than long keyword lists

ADVANCED SEARCH PATTERNS:

  • Field + phrase: ti:"transformer architecture" for papers with exact title phrase

  • Multiple fields: au:"Smith" AND ti:"quantum" for author Smith's quantum papers

  • Exclusions: "deep learning" ANDNOT ("survey" OR "review") to exclude survey papers

  • Broad + narrow: "artificial intelligence" AND (robotics OR "computer vision")

CATEGORY FILTERING (highly recommended for relevance):

  • cs.AI: Artificial Intelligence

  • cs.MA: Multi-Agent Systems

  • cs.LG: Machine Learning

  • cs.CL: Computation and Language (NLP)

  • cs.CV: Computer Vision

  • cs.RO: Robotics

  • cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction

  • cs.CR: Cryptography and Security

  • cs.DB: Databases

EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE QUERIES:

  • ti:"reinforcement learning" with categories: ["cs.LG", "cs.AI"] - for RL papers by title

  • au:"Hinton" AND "deep learning" with categories: ["cs.LG"] - for Hinton's deep learning work

  • "multi-agent" ANDNOT "survey" with categories: ["cs.MA"] - exclude survey papers

  • abs:"transformer" AND ti:"attention" with categories: ["cs.CL"] - attention papers with transformer abstracts

DATE FILTERING: Use YYYY-MM-DD format for historical research:

  • date_to: "2015-12-31" - for foundational/classic work (pre-2016)

  • date_from: "2020-01-01" - for recent developments (post-2020)

  • Both together for specific time periods

RESULT QUALITY: Results sorted by RELEVANCE (most relevant papers first), not just newest papers. This ensures you get the most pertinent results regardless of publication date.

TIPS FOR FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH:

  • Use date_to: "2010-12-31" to find classic papers on BDI, SOAR, ACT-R

  • Combine with field searches: ti:"BDI" AND abs:"belief desire intention"

  • Try author searches: au:"Rao" AND "BDI" for Anand Rao's foundational BDI work

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query using quoted phrases for exact matches (e.g., '"machine learning" OR "deep learning"') or specific technical terms. Avoid overly broad or generic terms.
max_resultsNoMaximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50). Use 15-20 for comprehensive searches.
date_fromNoStart date for papers (YYYY-MM-DD format). Use to find recent work, e.g., '2023-01-01' for last 2 years.
date_toNoEnd date for papers (YYYY-MM-DD format). Use with date_from to find historical work, e.g., '2020-12-31' for older research.
categoriesNoStrongly recommended: arXiv categories to focus search (e.g., ['cs.AI', 'cs.MA'] for agent research, ['cs.LG'] for ML, ['cs.CL'] for NLP, ['cs.CV'] for vision). Greatly improves relevance.
sort_byNoSort results by 'relevance' (most relevant first, default) or 'date' (newest first). Use 'relevance' for focused searches, 'date' for recent developments.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: results sorted by relevance by default, date filtering format, category filtering recommendations, and query optimization. No contradictions or omissions.

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?

Well-structured with sections, examples, and readability. Slightly verbose but each section adds value. Front-loaded core purpose, but could be more concise without losing utility.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Completely covers all 6 parameters with usage patterns and examples. No output schema expected; description compensates by explaining result relevance and filtering. No missing critical information for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining query syntax, category codes, date formats, and sort behavior, enabling precise use.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches for papers on arXiv with advanced filtering. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paper_content and list_papers by emphasizing search and filtering capabilities.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides extensive guidelines on query construction, category filtering, date filtering, and examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or directly mention alternatives, though sibling names imply use cases.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 4 tool updatesv0.3.1
    • First observeddownload_paper
    • First observedlist_papers
    • First observedread_paper
    • First observedsearch_papers
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct and clear purpose: download_paper fetches new papers, list_papers shows existing resources, read_paper accesses stored content, and search_papers finds papers on arXiv. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for any task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., download_paper, list_papers, read_paper, search_papers). This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, allowing agents to easily understand and use the toolset.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its arXiv paper management domain. Each tool serves a specific and necessary function—searching, downloading, listing, and reading papers—without being overly sparse or bloated, making it efficient for agent workflows.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides complete coverage for the core arXiv paper workflow: search_papers finds papers, download_paper acquires them, list_papers manages resources, and read_paper accesses content. This covers the full lifecycle from discovery to consumption, with no obvious gaps for typical agent tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • ArXiv MCP Server

    huanongfish
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to search and access arXiv research papers through a simple Message Control Protocol interface, allowing for paper search, download, listing, and reading capabilities.
    4
    7
    Apache 2.0

  • arXiv MCP Server

    Ray0907
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables searching and retrieving academic papers from arXiv with support for advanced filtering by author, category, and date, plus full paper content extraction.
    6
    14
    MIT

  • search-papers

    Saidiibrahim
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables agents to search, analyze, and explore arXiv academic papers with advanced multi-field search, author lookup, category browsing, citation extraction, and bibliography export.
    26
    Apache 2.0

Appeared in Searches