Search bioRxiv preprints for biology papers by query and filter by category, publication days, and result count to support literature discovery.
Search bioRxiv preprint server for biology papers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to search back (default: 30) | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| category | No | Category filter (e.g., neuroscience, genomics) | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of papers, metadata), any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the domain (bioRxiv, biology papers) but lacks details on return values, behavioral traits, or usage context, which are important for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., query string, maxResults range, days default, category examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'search' and the resource 'bioRxiv preprint server for biology papers', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_medrxiv' or 'search_papers', which might have overlapping domains or purposes.
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 like 'search_medrxiv' (for medical preprints) or 'search_pubmed' (for published papers). It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.