What can you do with this server?

The ArXiv MCP Server enables AI assistants to search, download, and access arXiv papers programmatically through a Message Control Protocol (MCP) interface. * Search Papers: Query arXiv papers using keywords with filters for date ranges, categories, and result limits * Download Papers: Download papers by their arXiv ID and store them locally * List Papers: View all previously downloaded papers available as resources * Read Papers: Access the full content of stored papers in markdown format * Local Storage: Save papers locally for faster access and offline usage

Which integrations are available for this server?

Allows AI assistants to search arXiv's research repository, download papers, access paper content, and view all downloaded papers through the MCP interface

How do I use ArXiv MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ArXiv MCP Server search for recent papers about large language models" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

en es ja ko zh

ArXiv MCP Server

by huanongfish

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Twitter Follow Python Version License: MIT PyPI Downloads PyPI Version

ArXiv MCP Server

🔍 Enable AI assistants to search and access arXiv papers through a simple MCP interface.

The ArXiv MCP Server provides a bridge between AI assistants and arXiv's research repository through the Message Control Protocol (MCP). It allows AI models to search for papers and access their content in a programmatic way.

🤝 Contribute • 📝 Report Bug

✨ Core Features

🔎 Paper Search: Query arXiv papers with filters for date ranges and categories
📄 Paper Access: Download and read paper content
📋 Paper Listing: View all downloaded papers
🗃️ Local Storage: Papers are saved locally for faster access
📝 Prompts: A Set of Research Prompts

Related MCP server: ArXiv MCP Server

🚀 Quick Start

Installing via Smithery

To install ArXiv Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:

npx -y @smithery/cli install arxiv-mcp-server --client claude

Installing Manually

Install using uv:

uv tool install arxiv-mcp-server

For development:

# Clone and set up development environment
git clone https://github.com/blazickjp/arxiv-mcp-server.git
cd arxiv-mcp-server

# Create and activate virtual environment
uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate

# Install with test dependencies
uv pip install -e ".[test]"

🔌 MCP Integration

Add this configuration to your MCP client config file:

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "arxiv-mcp-server": {
            "command": "uv",
            "args": [
                "tool",
                "run",
                "arxiv-mcp-server",
                "--storage-path", "/path/to/paper/storage"
            ]
        }
    }
}

For Development:

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "arxiv-mcp-server": {
            "command": "uv",
            "args": [
                "--directory",
                "path/to/cloned/arxiv-mcp-server",
                "run",
                "arxiv-mcp-server",
                "--storage-path", "/path/to/paper/storage"
            ]
        }
    }
}

💡 Available Tools

The server provides four main tools:

1. Paper Search

Search for papers with optional filters:

result = await call_tool("search_papers", {
    "query": "transformer architecture",
    "max_results": 10,
    "date_from": "2023-01-01",
    "categories": ["cs.AI", "cs.LG"]
})

2. Paper Download

Download a paper by its arXiv ID:

result = await call_tool("download_paper", {
    "paper_id": "2401.12345"
})

3. List Papers

View all downloaded papers:

result = await call_tool("list_papers", {})

4. Read Paper

Access the content of a downloaded paper:

result = await call_tool("read_paper", {
    "paper_id": "2401.12345"
})

⚙️ Configuration

Configure through environment variables:

Variable	Purpose	Default
`ARXIV_STORAGE_PATH`	Paper storage location	~/.arxiv-mcp-server/papers

🧪 Testing

Run the test suite:

python -m pytest

📄 License

Released under the MIT License. See the LICENSE file for details.

Made with ❤️ by the Pear Labs Team

Available Tools

4 tools

download_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_papersB

List all existing papers available as resources

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists papers but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'available as resources' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available as resources' means, the format of the returned list, or any constraints like ordering or limits. For a tool with no structured data support, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not adding unnecessary details.

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 ('List') and resource ('all existing papers available as resources'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_papers', which might offer filtering capabilities, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 'search_papers'. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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_papersC

Search for papers on arXiv with advanced filtering

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`max_results`	No
`date_from`	No
`date_to`	No
`categories`	No

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced filtering' but fails to detail key traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'advanced' entails. This is inadequate for a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be more structured by briefly outlining filter types. Overall, it earns its place without verbosity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or practical usage examples, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a context with sibling tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'advanced filtering' without explaining what parameters like 'categories' or date ranges entail, how 'query' is interpreted, or default behaviors for 'max_results'. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Search for papers') and resource ('on arXiv'), specifying 'with advanced filtering' to indicate capability beyond basic search. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_papers' by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'download_paper' or 'read_paper'.

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 'list_papers' or 'download_paper'. The description implies usage for filtered searches but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct 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 tool selection straightforward for an agent.

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). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for an arXiv server, covering core operations like search, download, list, and read. It is slightly lean but well-scoped, as each tool serves a distinct and essential function without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers key workflows for arXiv interaction: searching, downloading, listing, and reading papers. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete operations for stored papers, but these are not critical for the domain, and agents can work effectively with the provided tools.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

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

Related MCP Connectors

arxiv-mcp-server A
io.github.cyanheads
Search arXiv, fetch paper metadata, and read full-text content.
Search Research & Data Open Data
424
paper-mcp B
io.github.MCPServings
Search arXiv/Semantic Scholar/OpenAlex + medical evidence (PubMed/Europe PMC) + LaTeX/PDF tools.
Research & Data Open Data
21
adamamer20-paper-search-mcp-openai BOAuth
ai.smithery
Search and download academic papers from arXiv, PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, Google Scholar, Semantic…
Search Research & Data Open Data
214
shoumikdc-arxiv-mcp
ai.smithery
Discover the latest arXiv papers by category and keyword. Control how many results you get to spee…
Search Research & Data Open Data
2

Related MCP Servers

ArXiv MCP Server
Search Research & Data Documentation Access
leopeng1995
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A bridge between AI assistants and ArXiv's research repository that enables searching, downloading, and reading academic papers through the Message Control Protocol.
Updated a year ago (2025-03-30 08:14 UTC)
1
MIT
ArXiv MCP Server
Research & Data Search Documentation Access
wr-web
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to search and access arXiv papers through a Model Context Protocol interface, allowing for paper search, download, listing, and reading functionality.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-29 02:03 UTC)
4
2
Apache 2.0
arxiv-query-mcp
Research & Data Search
LWaetzig
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to search arXiv papers, retrieve metadata, browse categories, and read paper text.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-05-10 15:20 UTC)
4
MIT
Research MCP Server
Research & Data Search
spalit2025
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to discover and manage arXiv papers by searching for papers, extracting metadata, and browsing saved collections, all within the conversation.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-15 05:26 UTC)
1
MIT

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/huanongfish/arxiv-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server