Set a paper's triage state to organize your arXiv workflow, using states such as seen, shortlisted, dismissed, read, cite-later, archived, or unseen.
Set the triage state for a paper.
Valid states: seen, shortlisted, dismissed, read, cite-later, archived, unseen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| arxiv_id | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool mutates a paper's triage state but does not clarify whether the state overwrites the previous one, how the optional reason parameter behaves, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects might occur.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the action and object appear in the first sentence, and the valid states are enumerated in a scannable list. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary wording.
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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It omits behavioral details and leaves the reason parameter and arxiv_id format unexplained, so an agent may not know all consequences of invoking it.
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. It lists valid values for the 'state' parameter, which is helpful, but it provides no explanation for 'arxiv_id' beyond the schema title and no semantics for the 'reason' parameter. Parameter understanding remains incomplete.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the triage state for a paper.' It clearly identifies the action and the object, and the valid state list adds meaning. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings, though the operation is fairly unique among them.
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 implies use when an agent needs to assign or change a paper's triage state, and the list of valid states gives useful context. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for related operations like collections or signals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.