Set up a monitored search to track new arXiv papers matching a query, and check the associated delta resource to see papers added since your last check.
Create a monitored search that tracks new papers matching your query.
Read the watch://{slug}/deltas resource to see papers added since your last check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| cadence | No | daily | |
| category | 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a persistent monitored search and that results are consumed by reading watch://{slug}/deltas, including incremental papers added 'since your last check.' It does not cover every edge case, but core side effects and the consumption model are clear.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action steals. The follow-up instruction about reading the deltas resource is separate and useful, with no redundant wording or repetition of schema content.
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?
The description covers the main workflow and points the agent to the correct output resource, which is valuable given no output schema. However, it does not explain where the slug comes from or clarify optional parameters, so an agent must infer several details to make a fully informed invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'your query' in prose. It does not explain name, cadence, or category, leaving most parameters semantically under-specified.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a monitored search that tracks new papers matching your query.' This is distinct from one-off sibling tools like search_papers or browse_recent, which do not create a persistent, monitored activity.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose create_watch over alternatives. The second sentence describes what to do after creation (read the deltas resource), but it does not explain when a monitored watch is preferable to a direct search or browse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.