Download research papers from arXiv by ID to access content programmatically for analysis and review.
Download a paper and create a resource for it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | The arXiv ID of the paper to download | |
| check_status | No | If true, only check conversion status without downloading |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.