arXiv preprint ·
Which Metadata Matters for LLM Tool Selection in MCP? Evidence from Controlled Factor-Level Interventions
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
In Model Context Protocol (MCP) systems, LLMs select tools from metadata rather than from their implementations. Names and descriptions summarize what a tool does, while the parameter schema specifies the fields a tool accepts and how they are organized. Our analysis of metadata for 367,174 MCP tools reveals substantial schema variation among functionally similar tools. Many of these tools share names and similar descriptions but expose different parameter schemas. This raises a key question: can parameter-schema differences influence tool selection before any call is made? We study this question through controlled metadata interventions across five LLMs and five tasks. Each comparison changes exactly one metadata factor (server name, tool name, description, or parameter schema) while keeping the others fixed. We balance tool positions and use conditional logistic regression to estimate position-adjusted effects. We find that: (1) parameter-schema changes produce the largest and most consistent selection shifts among the tested interventions. Models tend to favor separate top-level parameters over grouped or composite forms. (2) Descriptions that explain parameters also tend to increase selection, while name effects are weaker and less consistent. (3) Targeted comparisons show that schema effects depend on the specific parameter names and on how the request represents the same information. When only one schema satisfies an explicit request requirement, all five models select the compatible tool despite position preferences. These results show that parameter schemas influence not only how tools are called, but also whether they are selected. For MCP developers and evaluators, schema design and tool ordering can therefore affect which implementation is invoked even when functionality is unchanged.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Co-Modifying Application Code and Deployment Infrastructure: A Causal Study of AI Agent Pull Requests
HoldSpec: A Machine-Checked Model and Conformance Suite for the Payment Authorization Hold Lifecycle
Evaluation of Software Quality Through Refactoring Commit-Impact Analysis
Specification-Based Testing of Large Language Models
Vulnerable Models in the AI Supply Chain: An Empirical Study of Adoption, Propagation, and Usage Patterns
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.