MCP-Zero: Active Tool Discovery for Autonomous LLM Agents
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From MemTool: Optimizing Short-Term Memory Management for Dynamic Tool Calling in LLM Agent Multi-Turn Conversations (2025) · cites this paper as Fei et al., 2025
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.”
From MemTool: Optimizing Short-Term Memory Management for Dynamic Tool Calling in LLM Agent Multi-Turn Conversations (2025) · cites this paper as Fei et al., 2025
Cites
The Landscape of Emerging AI Agent Architectures for Reasoning, Planning, and Tool Calling: A Survey
Masterman, T., Besen, S., Sawtell, M., & Chao, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.11584 · Cited by 35 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The emergence of function-calling mechanisms has enabled large language models (LLMs) to transcend their parametric boundaries, leveraging external tools, APIs, and execution environments to accomplish complex real-world tasks [14, 18, 21, 26].”
Re-Invoke: Tool Invocation Rewriting for Zero-Shot Tool Retrieval
Chen, Y., Yoon, J., Sachan, D. S., Wang, Q., Cohen-Addad, V., Bateni, M., Lee, C.-Y., & Pfister, T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.01875 · cited 1×
“Re-Invoke [5] introduced key information extraction from user queries before tool matching.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fang, J., Peng, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Yi, X., Zhang, G., Xu, Y., Wu, B., Liu, S., Li, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.07407 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Lumer, E., Gulati, A., Subbiah, V. K., Basavaraju, P. H., & Burke, J. A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21428
“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 us-ing native function calling (Fei et al., 2025; Lumer et al., 2025b).”
- Authors
- Fei, X., Zheng, X., & Feng, H.
- ORCID
- Zheng, Xiawu
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.01056
- OpenAlex
- W6929286924
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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