Need metadata for a single arXiv paper? Retrieve it by ID—title, authors, abstract, and publication details—for effective triage and monitoring.
Get metadata for a single paper by its arXiv ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arxiv_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only metadata lookup through the verb 'Get', but it does not describe what happens for invalid IDs, whether the operation has side effects, or what the returned metadata shape will be. Adequate, but not detailed.
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?
A single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, scope, and required identifier, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 one-parameter read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It identifies the operation, target, and input, but it could be more complete by describing return behavior or invalid-ID outcomes.
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?
The schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description. The description adds that the parameter selects a single paper, but it does not give format examples, versioning guidance, or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Get metadata'), a specific resource ('a single paper'), and the exact identifier ('arXiv ID'). The word 'single' distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_papers and browse_recent, making the intent unambiguous.
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 phrase 'by its arXiv ID' implies the tool is appropriate when the agent already has an exact ID, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_papers or other alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.