PaperGraph MCP

load_arxiv_paper

Download an arXiv paper and build its theorem dependency graph for analysis.

Instructions

Download an arXiv source project and build its theorem graph.

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": {
      "arxiv_id": "<arxiv_id>"
    },
    "name": "load_arxiv_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`refresh`	No
`arxiv_id`	Yes
`main_file`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 does state that the tool downloads a source project and builds a theorem graph, but it omits important behavioral details like whether it modifies the workspace, how refresh affects execution, whether network access is required, or what gets persisted. This is a meaningful but incomplete disclosure.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to other shortcomings.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is far from complete. It does not describe return values, optional parameter semantics, preconditions, side effects, or how this tool fits into a larger workflow, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. arxiv_id is implied by the tool name, but refresh and main_file are completely unexplained, so the agent cannot reason about their purpose or valid values.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Download an arXiv source project and build its theorem graph.' This makes the core operation identifiable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like load_arxiv_request or workspace_add_arxiv_paper, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_arxiv_request, load_paper, or the workspace_add_* variants. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

Deploy Server