A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceEnables 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
by freyzo
arXiv 深度研究
一个用于搜索、下载和阅读 arXiv 论文的 模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器 —— 旨在作为集成到多智能体系统（如 Microsoft Magentic-UI 和 AutoGen）中的专家智能体。
理念： 该服务器并非将 arXiv 搜索视为简单的查找工具，而是将其构建为一流的研究智能体 —— 你可以直接将其作为
McpAgent插入到 Magentic-One 风格的团队中，从而为编排器（Orchestrator）提供访问完整科学文献作为可委派资源的能力。
与 Magentic-UI 集成
Magentic-UI 通过其配置文件中的 mcp_agent_configs 支持自定义 McpAgent 实例。此服务器可直接插入：
# 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一旦注册，Magentic-UI 编排器就可以通过标准的任务分类账 / 进度分类账模式将研究子任务委派给此智能体 —— 这与 WebSurfer 处理网页浏览的方式完全相同，但针对的是学术文献。
Related MCP server: ArXiv Paper MCP
与 AutoGen AgentChat 集成
请参阅 examples/autogen_research_team.py 获取一个完整的 3 智能体团队示例：
Orchestrator (MagenticOneGroupChat)
├── ArxivSurfer ← this MCP server, wrapped via StdioServerParams + mcp_server_tools
└── Coder ← synthesizes findings into structured markdown reportspip install "autogen-agentchat" "autogen-ext[openai]" "mcp>=1.2.0"
export OPENAI_API_KEY=...
python examples/autogen_research_team.py工具
工具 | 描述 |
| 使用高级过滤器查询 arXiv：日期范围、类别、按相关性或日期排序 |
| 获取论文 PDF 并将其转换为适合 LLM 使用的纯 Markdown |
| 访问之前下载的论文内容 |
| 查看本地存储中的所有论文 |
search_papers
支持丰富的查询语法 —— 引号短语、布尔运算符、特定字段搜索 (ti:、au:、abs:) 以及类别过滤：
{
"query": "\"multi-agent\" AND \"orchestration\" ANDNOT survey",
"max_results": 10,
"date_from": "2024-01-01",
"categories": ["cs.AI", "cs.MA"],
"sort_by": "relevance"
}多阶段研究流水线
从高层来看，arxiv-deep-research 运行一个简单但强大的多阶段循环：
规划研究任务
协调智能体（例如 AutoGen
MagenticOneGroupChat编排器）获取用户目标并将其分解为子任务。
发现候选论文
协调器调用 MCP
search_papers工具，按主题、类别和日期查找相关的 arXiv 论文。
下载并规范化内容
对于选定的 ID，它调用
download_paper，该工具获取 PDF 并将其转换为适合 LLM 阅读的纯 Markdown。
深度论文分析
协调器（或另一个智能体）使用
deep-paper-analysis提示词要求对给定的论文 ID 进行结构化分析，在探索相关工作时，可以选择跨多个调用进行分析。
综合与报告
下游智能体（如 AutoGen 示例中的
Coder）将这些分析转化为最终的研究报告：摘要、对比表、未解决的问题以及后续步骤建议。
你可以通过从任何支持 MCP 的客户端调用工具和提示词来手动运行此流水线，或者使用示例 AutoGen 团队自动运行。
评估基准
该仓库包含一个检索质量基准 (eval/benchmark.py)，用于衡量：
Precision@K — 前 K 个结果中相关结果的比例
Recall@K — 在前 K 个结果中找到的已知相关论文的比例
MRR — 第一个相关结果的平均倒数排名
基准查询基于里程碑论文（AutoGen 2308.08155、Magentic-One 2411.04468、RAG 2005.11401、CoT 2201.11903）进行种子化，并可以使用下方的合成数据流水线自动扩展。
python eval/benchmark.py --k 10 --output results.json合成评估数据生成 (AgentInstruct 风格)
scripts/generate_eval_tasks.py 实现了一个 4 阶段流水线，从 arXiv 摘要中生成多样化的基准查询 —— 模仿 AgentInstruct 方法：
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 intersectionsexport OPENAI_API_KEY=...
python scripts/generate_eval_tasks.py --seed-category cs.AI --num-seeds 20 --output eval/generated_queries.json输出包括简单/中等/困难难度等级，用于分层评估。
可观测性：OpenTelemetry 追踪
每个工具调用都使用 OpenTelemetry 跨度（span）进行了检测（模仿 AutoGen v0.4 内置的 OTel 支持）：
# 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记录的跨度：mcp.tool.search_papers、mcp.tool.download_paper、mcp.tool.read_paper —— 每个跨度都包含查询、类别、结果计数、延迟和错误状态作为属性。
当未安装 opentelemetry-sdk 时，追踪是零成本的空操作。
安装
需要 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" }
}
}
}提示词
deep-paper-analysis
涵盖执行摘要、方法论、结果、影响和未来方向的全面分析工作流：
{ "paper_id": "2401.12345" }运行和恢复研究会话
目前有两种主要方式来运行研究会话。
1. AutoGen 多智能体团队（推荐演示）
这使用 OpenAI 模型来协调完整的研究工作流。
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这将启动一个交互式控制台 UI，其中：
Orchestrator 规划工作，
ArxivSurfer 通过 MCP 搜索并下载论文，以及
Coder 编写最终的 Markdown 报告。
要 恢复会话，你可以：
再次运行脚本并将之前的摘要作为新任务的一部分粘贴进去，或者
保持同一个控制台会话打开，并给团队下达后续指令（例如，“现在专注于安全权衡”）。
2. 从 Claude Desktop 或 Cursor 等工具直接使用 MCP
你也可以直接与 MCP 服务器对话并构建你自己的循环：
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当此服务器运行时，任何支持 MCP 的客户端都可以：
调用
search_papers和download_paper，使用
read_paper将内容拉取到聊天中，以及多次调用
deep-paper-analysis提示词。
提示词处理器保持一个简单的全局 研究上下文，因此在同一进程中的重复调用将提及之前分析过的论文 ID，并鼓励模型将它们联系起来。在实践中，“恢复”研究会话意味着：
保持同一个 MCP 服务器进程处于活动状态，以及
从同一个客户端或工作区为新的论文 ID 发出新的
deep-paper-analysis调用。
仓库结构
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环境变量
变量 | 默认值 | 描述 |
|
| 论文存储位置 |
|
| 启用控制台追踪输出 |
| — | OTLP 端点（例如 |
|
| 追踪中的服务名称 |
如果你使用可选的评估数据生成器，你还需要：
变量 | 描述 |
| 由 |
已知问题
目前仅支持 OpenAI 模型。
AutoGen 研究团队和合成评估生成器都通过 OpenAI Python SDK 调用 OpenAI 模型 (
gpt-4o/gpt-4o-mini)。目前还没有一流的
google-genai/ Gemini 或 Gemma 集成，尽管设计上是支持的。
尚无 MCP 资源。
论文仅通过工具 (
read_paper) 公开，而不是作为具有稳定arxiv://URI 的 MCP 资源。偏好资源的 MCP 客户端尚无法列出论文。
测试有限。
核心检索和评估逻辑的自动化测试非常少；度量函数和工具处理器应随着时间的推移增加单元测试。
路线图
计划的改进（可能会有变动）：
通过
google-genai支持 Gemini / Gemma添加可选的
google-genai依赖项和一个可以使用GEMINI_API_KEY调用 Gemini/Gemma 模型的小型运行器。将其作为研究团队演示和评估生成器的替代后端公开。
为下载的论文提供 MCP 资源
实现
list_resources/read_resource，以便下载的 PDF 在 MCP 客户端中显示为arxiv://paper_id资源。
更强的测试和评估
为度量标准、搜索助手和提示词处理器添加单元测试。
自动化运行
eval/benchmark.py并跟踪随时间的回归情况。
更丰富的研究会话
用显式的会话 ID 和持久化状态替换简单的全局研究上下文，以便“恢复会话 X”成为跨重启的一流功能。
Available Tools
4 toolsdownload_paperC
Download a paper and create a resource for it
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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 |
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | The 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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search 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_results | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50). Use 15-20 for comprehensive searches. | |
| date_from | No | Start date for papers (YYYY-MM-DD format). Use to find recent work, e.g., '2023-01-01' for last 2 years. | |
| date_to | No | End date for papers (YYYY-MM-DD format). Use with date_from to find historical work, e.g., '2020-12-31' for older research. | |
| categories | No | Strongly 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_by | No | Sort 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.
4 tool updates
v0.3.1- First observed
download_paper - First observed
list_papers - First observed
read_paper - First observed
search_papers
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
Related MCP Connectors
Search arXiv/Semantic Scholar/OpenAlex + medical evidence (PubMed/Europe PMC) + LaTeX/PDF tools.
Search arXiv and ACL Anthology, retrieve citations and references, and browse web sources to accel…
Extract papers from ArXiv — titles, abstracts, authors, categories & PDF links. Monitor new AI, phys
Find academic papers across major sources like arXiv, PubMed, bioRxiv, and more. Download PDFs whe…
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables searching, retrieving, and parsing academic papers from arXiv, including keyword search, PDF downloads, content extraction from HTML/PDF formats, and accessing the latest AI research papers.410 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables searching and retrieving academic papers from arXiv with support for advanced filtering by author, category, and date, plus full paper content extraction.615MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to search, analyze, and explore arXiv academic papers with advanced multi-field search, author lookup, category browsing, citation extraction, and bibliography export.29 npmApache 2.0