ArXiv MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.3.1
- 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 Consistency5/5All 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 Count5/5With 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.
Completeness5/5The 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.
Average 3.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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.
Completeness2/5Given 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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.
- 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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.
Completeness2/5Given 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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.
- 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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.
Completeness2/5Given 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.
Parameters4/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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 Guidelines3/5Does 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.
- 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.
Conciseness4/5Is 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.
Completeness5/5Given 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.
Parameters5/5Does 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.
Purpose5/5Does 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 Guidelines4/5Does 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.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: