download_articleDownload an arXiv paper as a PDF and return the saved file path, so you can retrieve full-text articles found in searches.
Download an arXiv article PDF and return its saved path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | ||
| directory | No | /Users/vivek/Downloads/arxiv-researcher | |
| article_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| pdf_url | Yes | ||
| article_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, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value type (saved path) and implicitly signals a side effect (writing a file). However, it omits behavioral details an agent likely needs: whether the file is overwritten, whether the parent directory must exist, whether authentication is required, and rate-limit or retry behavior.
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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and ending with the outcome. No filler or repetition.
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 three-parameter file-writing tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this one-liner is too thin. An output schema exists so return details are partly covered, but the gaps around the directory default, filename null handling, and write/overwrite semantics leave the description incomplete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It names none of them: 'article_id', 'directory' (with a hardcoded default path), and 'filename' (nullable) are left without explanation, especially the default directory behavior and the null filename semantics.
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?
States the specific verb (Download), the specific resource (arXiv article PDF), and the outcome (returns saved path). Clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'search', which finds articles rather than downloading 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?
Implied usage from the verb 'download', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance, and no mention of the 'search' sibling that precedes it in the typical workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.