Get current Research Intensity (RIS) for one of the 118 chemical elements, with a citation URL. No API key needed. Historical RI (HRI) is included with a Personal+ key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Element symbol, e.g. 'Fe' (a name like 'Iron' or an atomic number like '26' also works) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / symbol / descriptionPrevious value: -"Element symbol, e.g. 'Fe'"New value: +"Element symbol, e.g. 'Fe' (a name like 'Iron' or an atomic number like '26' also works)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it discloses that the current RI needs no API key, that a citation URL is returned, and that historical RI (HRI) is gated behind a Personal+ key. It omits rate limits and explicitly confirming the read-only nature, but the access/tier disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the schema.
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?
Three short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core capability leads and access constraints follow. The RIS/RI/HRI acronym switching introduces mild noise, keeping it short of ideal.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (current RI plus citation URL) and the tiering needed to get HRI. Nothing critical is missing, though the acronym inconsistency between RIS and RI could confuse an agent mapping it to get_subject_ri.
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% and the single 'symbol' parameter is already documented with accepted formats ('Fe', 'Iron', '26'). The description only hints at granularity via '118 chemical elements' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get current Research Intensity (RIS) ... for one of the 118 chemical elements') with a clear element-scoped boundary that separates it from the sibling get_subject_ri. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the contrast, so an agent must infer the element-vs-subject split from the scope wording alone.
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?
Usage is implied by the single-purpose element lookup, and there is one concrete precondition ('No API key needed', HRI requires Personal+). However, it never says when to prefer this over get_subject_ri or how it pairs with get_element_papers, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.