mcp-arxiv-research-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get arXiv papers

get_paper

Read-only

Fetch complete metadata and abstracts for up to 20 arXiv papers from IDs, arXiv: prefixes, or abs/pdf URLs to support paper research.

Instructions

Full metadata and abstract for up to 20 arXiv papers. Accepts ids (1706.03762, 1706.03762v5, hep-th/9901001), arXiv: prefixes and abs/pdf URLs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include full metadata plus abstract and that batching is capped, but the cap duplicates the schema's maxItems and it says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. one bad ID in a batch) or ordering of results.

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?

Two dense sentences with the return payload front-loaded and the ID format detail second; no filler, and the parenthetical examples are the most information-dense part.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must characterize the response, and 'full metadata and abstract' plus the batch cap does that at a reasonable level. Remaining gaps — exact metadata fields, behavior on unresolvable IDs — are minor for a simple read tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is just an untyped array of strings, so the description carries the burden — and it does well, listing concrete ID shapes (bare ID, versioned ID, old-style hep-th/9901001, arXiv: prefix, abs/pdf URLs). It stops short of saying whether mixed formats may appear in one array or how duplicates are handled.

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?

States the resource (arXiv papers) and what is returned (full metadata and abstract), with a batch cap of 20. The ID-based retrieval implicitly distinguishes it from search_arxiv, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts lookup-by-ID with keyword 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 accepted-ID formats strongly imply 'use this when you already have identifiers', which is useful steering, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative (e.g. search_arxiv for discovery), and no guidance on invalid or unknown IDs.

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

Deploy Server