searchFind arXiv articles by free-text query and return results as a dictionary. Retrieve relevant research papers on specific topics.
Search for arXiv articles matching the query and return the results as dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | 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 full behavioral burden. Beyond stating the output is a dict, it says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, empty-result behavior, or rate limits.
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 efficient sentence with no padding, front-loading the action and resource. It is brief and readable, though slightly under-specified rather than wasteful.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the two-parameter contract and usage context remain under-explained for an agent to call this reliably.
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 mentions the query implicitly but never explains query syntax, field prefixes, or the meaning and default of count (5), leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.
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 a specific verb (search) and resource (arXiv articles) and indicates the result shape (dict). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling download_article, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus download_article, nor any prerequisites or conditions of use. The agent must infer that search discovers articles while download_article retrieves them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.