Full provenance + detail for a single finding by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | finding UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| finding | No | The finding with source, DOI/PMID, assay context, and confidence tier. | |
| query_metadata | Yes | Echo of the resolved query. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "A single finding with full provenance.",
+ "properties": {
+ "finding": {
+ "description": "The finding with source, DOI/PMID, assay context, and confidence tier.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "query_metadata": {
+ "description": "Echo of the resolved query.",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "query_metadata"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds 'Full provenance + detail' indicating a comprehensive response, but does not elaborate on exact data shape or potential size limitations. With strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose exactly with no wasted words. Every part is essential.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter), has a full output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description fully specifies what and how, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'finding UUID' (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies per calibration.
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 specifies the action ('Full provenance + detail') and the resource ('a single finding by id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_compound or get_coverage which target other entities. The scope is unambiguous.
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 conveys appropriate usage: when you need comprehensive provenance information for one specific finding, identified by UUID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-id scope is clear and distinct from the many search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.