Enables searching for academic papers, retrieving PDF download links, parsing paper content from HTML or PDF formats, and fetching the latest AI research papers from arXiv.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ArXiv Paper MCP search for recent papers about large language models"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
一个基于 arXiv 的论文检索与内容解析工具。支持 Model Context Protocol (MCP) 标准，提供论文搜索、PDF链接获取和内容解析功能。
基于原项目: 此项目基于 Arxiv-Paper-MCP 修改而来
🔍 arXiv 论文智能搜索：关键词检索，快速定位你关心的论文
🔗 获取 PDF 下载链接：获取 arXiv 论文的直接 PDF 下载链接
📄 论文内容解析：智能解析论文内容，优先使用 HTML 版本，回退到 PDF
🆕 AI领域最新论文：获取 arXiv AI 领域今日最新更新论文列表
Related MCP server: arXiv MCP Server
npx @langgpt/arxiv-paper-mcpnpm install -g @langgpt/arxiv-paper-mcp
arxiv-paper-mcp在 Claude Desktop 的配置文件中添加：
{
"mcpServers": {
"arxiv-paper-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "bach-arxiv-paper-mcp@latest"]
}
}
}配置文件位置：
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
对于其他支持 MCP 的客户端，请参考其文档配置 stdio 传输方式。
工具名: search_arxiv
参数:
query：搜索关键词
maxResults：返回论文数（可选，默认 5）
工具名: get_arxiv_pdf_url
参数:
input：arXiv 论文 URL 或 arXiv ID（如：2403.15137v1）
工具名: parse_paper_content
参数:
input：arXiv 论文 URL 或 arXiv ID
paperInfo：论文元信息（可选，用于添加论文元数据）
工具名: get_recent_ai_papers
参数: 无
搜索论文
使用 search_arxiv 工具搜索相关论文
获取最新AI论文
用 get_recent_ai_papers 工具获取今日最新AI领域论文
获取PDF链接
用 get_arxiv_pdf_url 工具获取PDF下载链接
解析论文内容
用 parse_paper_content 工具获取论文的文本内容（优先 HTML，回退 PDF）
# 克隆项目
git clone https://github.com/yzfly/arxiv-paper-mcp.git
cd arxiv-paper-mcp
# 安装依赖
npm install
# 开发模式运行
npm run dev
# 构建
npm run build
# 运行构建版本
npm startarxiv-paper-mcp/
├── src/
│ └── index.ts # 主服务器文件
├── build/ # 编译输出目录
├── package.json # 项目配置
├── tsconfig.json # TypeScript 配置
├── README.md # 项目说明
└── LICENSE # 许可证Node.js >= 18.0.0
TypeScript - 类型安全的JavaScript
Model Context Protocol - 标准化的AI上下文协议
arXiv API - 学术论文数据源
论文搜索失败
错误：搜索失败
解决：检查网络连接，确保搜索关键词正确PDF解析失败
错误：PDF 解析失败
解决：检查 arXiv ID 是否正确，确保论文存在启用详细日志：
DEBUG=arxiv-paper-mcp npx @langgpt/arxiv-paper-mcp欢迎贡献代码！请遵循以下步骤：
Fork 本项目
创建特性分支：git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature
提交更改：git commit -m 'Add amazing feature'
推送分支：git push origin feature/amazing-feature
创建 Pull Request
本项目采用 MIT 许可证。详情请见 LICENSE 文件。
作者: yzfly
GitHub: https://github.com/yzfly
如果您觉得这个项目有用，请给它一个 ⭐！
如有问题或建议，请通过以下方式联系：
📧 邮箱：yz.liu.me@gmail.com
🐛 GitHub Issues：项目问题追踪
💬 GitHub Discussions：项目讨论区
获取 arXiv PDF 下载链接
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | arXiv 论文URL（如：http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15137v1）或 arXiv ID（如：2403.15137v1） |
Does 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. It states what the tool does but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a 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 in Chinese ('获取 arXiv PDF 下载链接') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a PDF URL string), potential errors, or behavioral context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
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 the input parameter clearly documented as accepting arXiv URLs or IDs. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 '获取 arXiv PDF 下载链接' clearly states the verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('arXiv PDF 下载链接' meaning 'arXiv PDF download link'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_ai_papers' or 'parse_paper_content' which also work with arXiv papers, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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_arxiv' or 'parse_paper_content'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an arXiv URL or ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the input schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
获取 arXiv AI 领域最新论文（cs.AI/recent）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does 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. It states the tool fetches recent papers but doesn't describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, return format (e.g., list of papers with metadata), pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format, error handling, or usage constraints, which are important for complete contextual understanding. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what is returned, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by specifying the arXiv category (cs.AI/recent), which isn't in the schema. This earns a baseline score of 4 for parameter semantics, as it compensates appropriately for the lack of parameters.
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 action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('arXiv AI 领域最新论文' meaning 'latest arXiv AI papers'), specifying the exact arXiv category (cs.AI/recent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_arxiv' by focusing on recent papers rather than search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_arxiv_pdf_url' or 'parse_paper_content', keeping it from a perfect score.
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 implies usage for retrieving recent AI papers from arXiv, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_arxiv' for broader searches or 'get_arxiv_pdf_url' for specific PDFs. The context is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, resulting in an implied usage score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
解析论文内容（优先使用 HTML 版本，回退到 PDF）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | arXiv 论文URL或 arXiv ID | |
| paperInfo | No | 论文信息（可选，用于添加论文元数据） |
Does 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. It mentions the HTML/PDF fallback behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the parsed output looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool that likely involves network requests and content processing, 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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and a key behavioral detail (HTML/PDF preference). There's no wasted text or redundancy.
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 (parsing academic papers with fallback logic), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'parsed content' includes (e.g., full text, abstracts, sections), error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 2 parameters (one nested) and no structured output definition, more context is needed for effective use.
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 both parameters ('input' as arXiv URL/ID and 'paperInfo' as optional metadata). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., arXiv ID patterns) or how 'paperInfo' might affect parsing. 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 action ('解析论文内容' - parse paper content) and specifies the resource (papers from arXiv via URL/ID). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_arxiv_pdf_url' (which only retrieves URLs) and 'search_arxiv' (which searches metadata) by focusing on content extraction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what content is extracted (e.g., text, sections, references).
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 some usage context by stating '优先使用 HTML 版本，回退到 PDF' (prefer HTML version, fallback to PDF), which implies when to use this tool for content parsing rather than just getting PDF URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives like 'get_recent_ai_papers' or 'search_arxiv', nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
搜索 arXiv 论文
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 搜索英文关键词 | |
| maxResults | No | 最大结果数量 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('搜索' - search) without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it returns metadata only, supports pagination, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what format results come in. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.
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 extremely concise ('搜索 arXiv 论文' - Search arXiv papers) - just four characters in Chinese. While this is efficient and front-loaded, it might be overly terse given the tool's functionality and lack of sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place, but more content could be justified.
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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description is minimal, it's incomplete for a search tool with 2 parameters. The description doesn't explain what kind of search it performs, what fields are searched, what the results look like, or any limitations. With richer context needed, this falls short of being complete enough.
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 both parameters ('query' and 'maxResults') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 '搜索 arXiv 论文' (Search arXiv papers) states the basic purpose with a clear verb ('搜索' - search) and resource ('arXiv 论文' - arXiv papers). However, it lacks specificity about what kind of search it performs (e.g., title/abstract/full-text) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_recent_ai_papers' or 'parse_paper_content'.
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. It doesn't mention when this search tool is appropriate compared to 'get_recent_ai_papers' (which might fetch recent papers without a query) or 'parse_paper_content' (which processes paper content). No context about use cases or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0get_arxiv_pdf_urlget_recent_ai_papersparse_paper_contentsearch_arxivEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_arxiv_pdf_url retrieves PDF URLs, get_recent_ai_papers fetches recent AI papers, parse_paper_content extracts content from papers, and search_arxiv searches for papers. The descriptions reinforce these distinct functions, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_arxiv_pdf_url, parse_paper_content) using snake_case throughout. This predictability makes the set easy to understand and navigate without any deviations in style.
With 4 tools, the count is slightly lean but reasonable for the arXiv paper domain. It covers core operations like searching, retrieving recent papers, getting PDFs, and parsing content, though it might benefit from additional tools for filtering or advanced queries.
The toolset provides good coverage for basic arXiv interactions, including search, retrieval, and content parsing. However, there are minor gaps, such as no tools for filtering results by date or category beyond AI, or for accessing paper metadata like authors and abstracts directly.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Extract papers from ArXiv — titles, abstracts, authors, categories & PDF links. Monitor new AI, phys
Search arXiv, fetch paper metadata, and read full-text content.
Find academic papers across major sources like arXiv, PubMed, bioRxiv, and more. Download PDFs whe…
Search arXiv/Semantic Scholar/OpenAlex + medical evidence (PubMed/Europe PMC) + LaTeX/PDF tools.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BACH-AI-Tools/bach-Arxiv-Paper-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server