Skip to main content
Glama
nanyang12138

AI Research MCP Server

by nanyang12138

search_by_area

Find AI research papers and code repositories by specifying a research area like LLM, vision, robotics, or bioinformatics. Filter results by date range and content type.

Instructions

Search papers and repos by research area (llm, vision, robotics, bioinfo, etc.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaYesResearch area: llm, vision, robotics, bioinfo, rl, graph, etc.
daysNoNumber of days to look back
include_papersNoInclude papers from arXiv
include_reposNoInclude GitHub repositories

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'search_by_area' tool in the MCP server, including name, description, and input schema.
    Tool(
        name="search_by_area",
        description="Search papers and repos by research area (llm, vision, robotics, bioinfo, etc.)",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "area": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Research area: llm, vision, robotics, bioinfo, rl, graph, etc.",
                },
                "days": {
                    "type": "integer",
                    "description": "Number of days to look back",
                    "default": 7,
                },
                "include_papers": {
                    "type": "boolean",
                    "description": "Include papers from arXiv",
                    "default": True,
                },
                "include_repos": {
                    "type": "boolean",
                    "description": "Include GitHub repositories",
                    "default": True,
                },
            },
            "required": ["area"],
        },
    ),
  • Main execution handler for the 'search_by_area' tool. Orchestrates calls to arXiv and GitHub clients based on parameters and formats the combined results as markdown.
    async def _search_by_area(
        self,
        area: str,
        days: int = 7,
        include_papers: bool = True,
        include_repos: bool = True,
    ) -> str:
        """Search by research area."""
        results = []
        
        if include_papers:
            papers = await asyncio.to_thread(
                self.arxiv.get_latest_by_area,
                area=area,
                days=days,
            )
            results.append(f"## Papers ({len(papers)})\n\n{self._format_papers(papers)}")
        
        if include_repos:
            repos = await asyncio.to_thread(
                self.github.search_by_area,
                area=area,
                days=days,
            )
            results.append(f"## Repositories ({len(repos)})\n\n{self._format_repos(repos)}")
        
        return f"# AI Research: {area.upper()}\n\n" + "\n\n".join(results)
  • Supporting implementation in GitHubClient class that maps research areas to keywords and performs repository search.
    def search_by_area(
        self,
        area: str,
        min_stars: int = 50,
        days: int = 30,
        max_results: int = 25,
    ) -> List[Dict]:
        """Search repositories by research area.
        
        Args:
            area: Research area (e.g., 'llm', 'robotics', 'bioinfo')
            min_stars: Minimum number of stars
            days: Look back this many days
            max_results: Maximum number of results
            
        Returns:
            List of repository dictionaries
        """
        keywords = self.AI_KEYWORDS.get(area.lower())
        if not keywords:
            raise ValueError(f"Unknown area: {area}. Valid areas: {list(self.AI_KEYWORDS.keys())}")
        
        return self.search_repositories(
            keywords=keywords[:3],  # Use top 3 keywords to avoid too restrictive search
            min_stars=min_stars,
            pushed_since=f"{days}d",
            sort_by="stars",
            max_results=max_results,
        )
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions searching papers and repos by area but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, result formats, pagination, or what happens with invalid areas. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating paper and repo aspects, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain result formats, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. The combination of missing annotations and lack of output schema means the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how it behaves.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'area' parameter accepts values like 'llm, vision, robotics, bioinfo', which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool searches for papers and repositories by research area, with specific examples (llm, vision, robotics, bioinfo). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_daily_papers' or 'search_github_repos' by combining both paper and repo search with area filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_latest_papers' or 'search_github_repos' beyond the area focus.

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 when searching by research area rather than other criteria, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_latest_papers' or 'search_github_repos'. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios is provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nanyang12138/AI-Research-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server