PreprintCited by 2AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningTopic ModelingArtificial Intelligence Applications

MCP-Zero: Active Tool Discovery for Autonomous LLM Agents

Open access
Fei, Xiang, Zheng, Xiawu, Feng, Hao·2025·arXiv

Abstract

True intelligence requires active capability acquisition, yet current LLM agents inject pre-defined tool schemas into prompts, reducing models to passive selectors and falling short of robust general-purpose agency. We introduce MCP-Zero, an active agent framework that restores tool discovery autonomy to LLMs themselves. Instead of overwhelming models with all available tools, MCP-Zero enables agents to actively identify capability gaps, and request specific tools on-demand, transforming them from large-scale retrievers into genuine autonomous agents. The framework operates through three core mechanisms: (1) Active Tool Request, where models autonomously generate structured requests specifying their exact tool requirements; (2) Hierarchical Semantic Routing, a two-stage algorithm that matches requests to relevant servers and tools through improved semantic alignment; (3) Iterative Capability Extension, enabling agents to progressively build cross-domain toolchains while maintaining minimal context footprint. We construct MCP-tools, a comprehensive dataset of 308 MCP servers and 2,797 tools from the official Model-Context-Protocol repository. Experiments demonstrate that MCP-Zero preserves agent autonomy while achieving substantial efficiency gains: (i) accurate tool selection from nearly 3k candidates across 248.1k tokens; (ii) 98\% reduction in token consumption on APIBank while maintaining high accuracy; and (iii) consistent multi-turn performance that scales with tool ecosystem growth. This work establishes active tool discovery as a fundamental design pattern for scalable autonomous agent systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.01056

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing state-of-the-art methods do not address the removal and management of tools within the LLM agent context window across a 100+ multi-turn session, while using native function calling.

    “However, the existing state-of-the-art methods do not address the removal and management of tools (along with the addition of tools) within the LLM agent context window across a 100+ multi-turn session, while using native function calling (Fei et al., 2025; Lumer et al., 2025b).”
  • Recent contributions and stronger tool calling LLM models significantly advance this domain by enabling an agent to dynamically query a comprehensive repository of over 5,000 MCP servers, facilitating efficient tool incorporation into the agent's context window.

    “Recent contributions and stronger tool calling LLM models (Lumer et al., 2025b; Fei et al., 2025) significantly advance this domain by enabling an agent to dynamically query a comprehensive repository of over 5,000 MCP servers, facilitating efficient tool incorporation into the agent's context window.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fei, X., Zheng, X., & Feng, H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6929286924
Cited by
0
References
2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
LLM agents, autonomous agents, tool selection, token efficiency, Model Context Protocol

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review