arxiv_searchFind relevant arXiv papers with full-field search across title, abstract, and author, helping researchers discover academic work.
搜索 arXiv 论文（标题/摘要/作者全字段匹配），研究者获取最新学术动态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | 排序，relevance=相关度（默认）/ submittedDate=最新提交 | relevance |
| limit | No | 返回数量，默认 10，最大 50 | |
| query | Yes | 搜索词，支持 arXiv 高级语法如 'cat:cs.AI AND all:agent' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It discloses that the search matches across title, abstract, and author fields, which is useful. However, it does not explain result ordering behavior, pagination, or any API-specific constraints beyond the schema.
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 a single concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. The audience clause '研究者获取最新学术动态' adds mild context but is not verbose or redundant enough to hurt the structure.
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 tool is moderately complex with an output schema and fully documented parameters, so much of the operational context is covered elsewhere. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to the many search-related sibling tools, making the description acceptable but 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents query, sort, and limit. The description's mention of title/abstract/author fields relates to search scope rather than the parameter syntax, adding little beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '搜索 arXiv 论文' (search arXiv papers), and further clarifies the matching scope as title/abstract/author. This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like web_search and exa_search by naming a unique academic corpus.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as web_search or exa_search. The phrase '研究者获取最新学术动态' implies a research-oriented use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.