Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Paper Search MCP

Paper Search MCP

by openags
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

read_biorxiv_paper

Extract text content from bioRxiv paper PDFs using DOI identifiers to access and analyze scientific research documents.

Instructions

Read and extract text content from a bioRxiv paper PDF.

Args: paper_id: bioRxiv DOI. save_path: Directory where the PDF is/will be saved (default: './downloads'). Returns: str: The extracted text content of the paper.

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": {
      "paper_id": "<paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_biorxiv_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paper_idYes
save_pathNo./downloads

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that it saves a PDF to a directory (side-effect) and returns string text, but no info on error handling, permissions, or rate limits; no contradictions with absent annotations.

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?

Very concise with clear structure: purpose sentence, labeled args, and return type; every part earns its place.

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?

Explains all inputs and output, mentions default save path, but could note behavior if paper not found or file already exists.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: paper_id explained as 'bioRxiv DOI' and save_path as 'directory where PDF is saved', clarifying usage beyond plain titles and types.

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?

Clearly states it reads and extracts text from a bioRxiv paper PDF, with the source distinct from sibling read_* tools for other repositories.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_biorxiv or other read tools; no 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools