Create a named interest profile with optional negative weighting to personalize arXiv paper discovery and ranking.
Create a new interest profile.
Returns the profile summary with slug, name, signal_count, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| negative_weight | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool persists a new profile and returns a summary with slug, name, signal_count, and timestamps. It does not cover duplicates, idempotency, or side effects, but the core mutation behavior is explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return summary is a useful addition. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter creation tool, the basics are present: what is created and what is returned. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of the optional parameter or when to use this tool, the description leaves moderate gaps that an agent would need to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. 'name' is self-explanatory, but 'negative_weight' is a non-obvious optional parameter that is never explained. The return fields mention signal_count but not how negative_weight affects it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new interest profile'), and even lists the return payload. It distinguishes itself from sibling create_watch through the noun 'profile', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other profile-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to create a profile versus using alternatives like create_watch, add_signal, or add_to_collection. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues beyond the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.