Search medRxiv for medical preprints by query, category, and date range to find relevant papers for literature research.
Search medRxiv preprint server for medical 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., infectious_diseases, epidemiology) | |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
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 having 18 sibling tools (many of which are similar search tools) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't help the agent navigate the crowded tool ecosystem or understand medRxiv's specific value proposition versus other repositories. For a search tool among many alternatives, more contextual guidance is needed.
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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%), and the description doesn't compensate with additional context about how parameters interact or search behavior nuances.
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 resource ('medRxiv preprint server for medical papers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (like search_arxiv, search_biorxiv, search_pubmed, etc.), which all search different repositories. A perfect score would require distinguishing this specific medRxiv search from other similar search tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus its many sibling search tools. With 18 sibling tools including multiple search tools for different repositories (medRxiv, arXiv, bioRxiv, PubMed, etc.), the agent receives no help in choosing between them. There's no mention of medRxiv's specific focus (medical preprints) versus other databases' scopes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.