Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
huanongfish

ArXiv MCP Server

by huanongfish
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Twitter 关注 铁匠徽章 Python 版本 许可证：MIT PyPI 下载 PyPI 版本

ArXiv MCP 服务器

🔍 让 AI 助手能够通过简单的 MCP 界面搜索和访问 arXiv 论文。

ArXiv MCP 服务器通过消息控制协议 (MCP) 在 AI 助手和 arXiv 研究库之间架起了一座桥梁。它允许 AI 模型以编程方式搜索论文并访问其内容。

🤝**贡献• 📝报告错误**

✨ 核心功能

  • 🔎论文搜索：使用日期范围和类别过滤器查询 arXiv 论文

  • 📄论文访问：下载并阅读论文内容

  • 📋论文列表：查看所有下载的论文

  • 🗃️本地存储：论文保存在本地以便更快地访问

  • 📝提示：一组研究提示

Related MCP server: ArXiv MCP Server

🚀 快速入门

通过 Smithery 安装

要通过Smithery自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 ArXiv Server：

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

手动安装

使用 uv 安装：

uv tool install arxiv-mcp-server

对于开发：

# 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 集成

将此配置添加到您的 MCP 客户端配置文件中：

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

对于开发：

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

💡 可用工具

该服务器提供四个主要工具：

1. 论文搜索

使用可选过滤器搜索论文：

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

2. 论文下载

通过 arXiv ID 下载论文：

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

3. 列出论文

查看所有下载的论文：

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

4. 阅读论文

访问已下载论文的内容：

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

⚙️ 配置

通过环境变量配置：

多变的

目的

默认

ARXIV_STORAGE_PATH

纸张存放位置

〜/ .arxiv-mcp-server /论文

🧪 测试

运行测试套件：

python -m pytest

📄 许可证

根据 MIT 许可证发布。详情请参阅许可证文件。

由 Pear Labs 团队倾情打造

Available Tools

4 tools
download_paperC

Download a paper and create a resource for it

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYesThe arXiv ID of the paper to download
check_statusNoIf 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYesThe 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
max_resultsNo
date_fromNo
date_toNo
categoriesNo

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.

  1. 4 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • 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 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

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • ArXiv MCP Server

    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.
    4
    2
    Apache 2.0

  • arxiv-query-mcp

    LWaetzig
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to search arXiv papers, retrieve metadata, browse categories, and read paper text.
    4
    MIT

  • Research MCP Server

    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.
    1
    MIT

Appeared in Searches