Download academic paper PDFs by paper ID from supported platforms such as arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, Semantic Scholar, IACR, Sci-Hub, Springer, and Wiley, with an optional save path.
Download PDF file of an academic paper
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paperId | Yes | Paper ID (e.g., arXiv ID, DOI for Sci-Hub) | |
| platform | Yes | Platform where the paper is from | |
| savePath | No | Directory to save the PDF file |
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 burden. It states the action ('Download PDF file') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires authentication, potential rate limits, file size considerations, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the paper isn't found). For a download operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of downloading files across multiple platforms and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error handling, return values (e.g., success confirmation or file path), or platform-specific behaviors, which are crucial for a tool with 3 parameters and varied platforms.
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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they're needed for downloading. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Download') and resource ('PDF file of an academic paper'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper_by_doi' or 'search_arxiv', which might also retrieve papers but perhaps in different formats or contexts.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for searching and retrieving papers, it's unclear if this is the primary download method or if others like 'get_paper_by_doi' serve similar purposes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.