Skip to main content
Glama
yogsoth-ai

medrxiv-mcp

by yogsoth-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v2.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one searches for preprints by keyword, the other fetches the full text of a specific preprint by DOI. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern consistently: 'search_preprints' and 'fetch_fulltext'. The naming is clear and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal but covers the essential use case of finding and reading preprints. However, it is borderline thin and could benefit from additional tools for filtering or listing.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers the core workflow—search and fetch—but lacks features like filtering by date, author, or category, or listing recent preprints. Minor gaps exist that agents can work around.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior5/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: S3 download cost, extraction process, and caching behavior. This well compensates for missing annotations.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Covers inputs, process, and performance. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Missing error conditions (e.g., invalid DOI) slightly reduce completeness.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0%, so description should add parameter meaning. It indirectly clarifies the 'doi' parameter by stating it's a DOI, but does not provide format, examples, or validation details.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states it fetches the full text of a preprint as markdown given its DOI. It is distinct from the sibling tool search_preprints, which searches for preprints.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides context on when to use (given a DOI) and performance implications (first use of month slower). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that results are relevance-ranked, free, and returns a structured list (doi, title, abstract, date). However, it doesn't mention possible empty results or error handling, but the output format is well-described.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and essential information front-loaded: purpose, features (relevance, free), output format, and sibling relationship.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the return structure sufficiently. It addresses integration with the sibling tool. It lacks details on pagination or error cases, but for a simple search tool, it is reasonably complete.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description explains that 'query' is a keyword, and the 'limit' parameter is implied with a default of 20. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully elaborate on their behavior or constraints.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool searches bioRxiv/medRxiv preprints by keyword, mentions relevance-ranking and free access, and distinguishes from the sibling fetch_fulltext by advising to use the DOI with that tool.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    It explicitly says when to use (by keyword) and provides a link to the sibling tool for full-text retrieval, giving clear guidance on tool choice with no ambiguity.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

medrxiv-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

medrxiv-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yogsoth-ai/medrxiv-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server