Which integrations are available for this server?

Enables searching, downloading, and reading arXiv papers with filter options for date ranges and categories, plus paper analysis capabilities through specialized prompts. Allows installation and distribution of the server package through PyPI, with version tracking and download statistics.

How do I use ArXiv MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy 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.

ArXiv MCP Server

by wr-web

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Twitter Follow Python Version Tests 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 Model Context 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 Paper MCP

🚀 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"
})

📝 Research Prompts

The server offers specialized prompts to help analyze academic papers:

Paper Analysis Prompt

A comprehensive workflow for analyzing academic papers that only requires a paper ID:

result = await call_prompt("deep-paper-analysis", {
    "paper_id": "2401.12345"
})

This prompt includes:

Detailed instructions for using available tools (list_papers, download_paper, read_paper, search_papers)
A systematic workflow for paper analysis
Comprehensive analysis structure covering:
- Executive summary
- Research context
- Methodology analysis
- Results evaluation
- Practical and theoretical implications
- Future research directions
- Broader impacts

⚙️ 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 Pearl 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_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
`query`	Yes
`max_results`	No
`date_from`	No
`date_to`	No
`categories`	No
`save_to_file`	No	Optional file path to save results
`min_citations`	No	Minimum citation count filter

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 'advanced filtering' but doesn't explain what that entails, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with the 'save_to_file' parameter. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 that front-loads the core action ('search for papers on arXiv') and adds a key feature ('with advanced filtering'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of 7 parameters, low schema coverage (29%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or detailed behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple filtering options and potential side effects like file saving.

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 low at 29%, with only 'save_to_file' and 'min_citations' having descriptions. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'advanced filtering' which relates to parameters like 'categories', 'date_from', etc., but doesn't provide specific meanings or usage examples. It compensates somewhat but not enough to fully bridge the coverage gap, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('papers on arXiv'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_paper', 'list_papers', and 'read_paper' by specifying searching with filtering, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_papers' which might also list papers. This is specific but could be more precise about the advanced filtering 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 'list_papers' or 'download_paper'. It mentions 'advanced filtering' but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. This lack of explicit alternatives or conditions reduces its helpfulness.

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 updatesAug 15, 2025
- First observeddownload_paper
- First observedlist_papers
- First observedread_paper
- First observedsearch_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

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 09:10 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 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). This uniformity enhances readability and predictability across the tool set.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the count is appropriate for a focused arXiv server, covering core operations like search, download, list, and read. It's slightly lean but reasonable; adding tools for metadata management or updates could improve coverage without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers essential arXiv workflows: searching, downloading, listing, and reading papers. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking tools for updating or deleting stored papers, but agents can still perform key tasks effectively within the domain.

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
IlyaGusev-academia_mcp
ai.smithery
Search arXiv and ACL Anthology, retrieve citations and references, and browse web sources to accel…
Search Research & Data Open Data
291
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

Related MCP Servers

ArXiv MCP Server
Search Research & Data
huanongfish
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Enables 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.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-04 06:30 UTC)
4
7
Apache 2.0
ArXiv Paper MCP
Search Research & Data
yzfly
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
Provides paper search, PDF link retrieval, and content parsing for arXiv research papers, enabling seamless access to scientific literature through the Model Context Protocol.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-05 03:49 UTC)
4
21 npm
25
MIT
arXiv MCP Server
Research & Data Search
anuj0456
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to search, retrieve, analyze, and export academic papers from arXiv.org using the Model Context Protocol.
Updated a year ago (2025-08-03 17:07 UTC)
19
MIT
ArXiv Sync MCP Server
Research & Data Open Data
marfago
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to search, download, and access arXiv papers with local storage and date filtering via the Model Context Protocol.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-25 16:14 UTC)
3
1
Apache 2.0

ArXiv MCP Server

✨ Core Features

🚀 Quick Start

Installing via Smithery

Installing Manually

🔌 MCP Integration

💡 Available Tools

1. Paper Search

2. Paper Download

3. List Papers

4. Read Paper

📝 Research Prompts

Paper Analysis Prompt

⚙️ Configuration

🧪 Testing

📄 License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches