en es ja ko zh

ArXiv MCP Server

Name: ArXiv MCP Server
Author: huanongfish

by huanongfish

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

트위터 팔로우 대장간 배지 파이썬 버전 라이센스: MIT PyPI 다운로드 PyPI 버전

ArXiv MCP 서버

🔍 AI 보조원이 간단한 MCP 인터페이스를 통해 arXiv 논문을 검색하고 액세스할 수 있도록 합니다.

ArXiv MCP 서버는 메시지 제어 프로토콜(MCP)을 통해 AI 어시스턴트와 arXiv 연구 저장소를 연결합니다. AI 모델이 프로그래밍 방식으로 논문을 검색하고 콘텐츠에 접근할 수 있도록 지원합니다.

🤝 기여 • 📝 버그 신고

✨ 핵심 기능

🔎 논문 검색 : 날짜 범위 및 범주 필터를 사용하여 arXiv 논문을 검색합니다.
📄 논문 접근 : 논문 내용을 다운로드하고 읽어보세요
📋 논문 목록 : 다운로드한 모든 논문 보기
🗃️ 로컬 스토리지 : 더 빠른 액세스를 위해 문서가 로컬에 저장됩니다.
📝 프롬프트 : 연구 프롬프트 세트

Related MCP server: ArXiv MCP Server

🚀 빠른 시작

Smithery를 통해 설치

Smithery 를 통해 Claude Desktop에 ArXiv Server를 자동으로 설치하는 방법:

지엑스피1

수동 설치

uv를 사용하여 설치:

uv tool install arxiv-mcp-server

개발을 위해:

# 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 통합

MCP 클라이언트 구성 파일에 다음 구성을 추가하세요.

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

개발을 위해:

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

💡 사용 가능한 도구

서버는 4가지 주요 도구를 제공합니다.

1. 논문 검색

선택 필터를 사용하여 논문 검색:

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

2. 논문 다운로드

arXiv ID로 논문을 다운로드하세요:

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

3. 논문 목록

다운로드한 모든 논문 보기:

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

4. 논문 읽기

다운로드한 논문의 내용에 접근하세요:

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

⚙️ 구성

환경 변수를 통해 구성:

변하기 쉬운	목적	기본
`ARXIV_STORAGE_PATH`	종이 보관 위치	~/.arxiv-mcp-server/papers

🧪 테스트

테스트 모음을 실행합니다.

python -m pytest

📄 라이센스

MIT 라이선스에 따라 배포됩니다. 자세한 내용은 라이선스 파일을 참조하세요.

Pear Labs 팀이 ❤️로 만들었습니다

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_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_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.

Tool Schema Changelog

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

4 tool updatesv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026
- Addeddownload_paper
- Addedlist_papers
- Addedread_paper
- Addedsearch_papers

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 11:25 across 4 tools

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

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
426
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 COAuth
ai.smithery
Search and download academic papers from arXiv, PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, Google Scholar, Semantic…
Search Research & Data Open Data
25215
Papers by Ouroboros Apps A
io.github.LAHutchins91
Research paper search with real citations and reference formatting for AI assistants
Search Research & Data RAG Systems
41

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 2 years 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 5 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 7 months ago (2026-03-15 05:26 UTC)
1
MIT

ArXiv MCP 서버

✨ 핵심 기능

🚀 빠른 시작

Smithery를 통해 설치

수동 설치

🔌 MCP 통합

💡 사용 가능한 도구

1. 논문 검색

2. 논문 다운로드

3. 논문 목록

4. 논문 읽기

⚙️ 구성

🧪 테스트

📄 라이센스

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches