Get full details of a Cochrane systematic review by PubMed ID.
Returns the complete abstract, authors, publication info, MeSH terms,
and conclusions of a Cochrane review. Use PMIDs from search_reviews results.
Args:
pmid: PubMed ID of the review (e.g. '35658166').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the returned fields (abstract, authors, publication info, MeSH terms, conclusions) and indicates a read-only retrieval operation. It does not address error cases or auth, but for a straightforward detail-fetch tool this is adequate.
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?
The description is concise, with a clear first sentence stating the main action, a brief list of return content, and a neatly formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to obtain the required PMID, and the purpose within the broader workflow. No additional context is necessary for correct selection and invocation.
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 schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by defining pmid as 'PubMed ID of the review' and providing an example ('35658166'). This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to invoke the tool correctly.
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 opens with 'Get full details of a Cochrane systematic review by PubMed ID', which clearly states the action, resource, and identifier. It lists specific returned content (abstract, authors, MeSH terms, conclusions), and the focus on 'details' distinguishes it from sibling search tools.
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 explicitly states 'Use PMIDs from search_reviews results', providing clear context for when this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical selection.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: search_reviews finds reviews, get_review_detail retrieves a specific review's details, and search_clinical_trials searches for trial publications. There is no overlap in purpose, and clear usage flow is evident from descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: search_reviews, search_clinical_trials, get_review_detail. The verbs 'search' and 'get' are appropriate for their actions, and the naming is predictable across the set.
Three tools is at the lower bound of the well-scoped range. The server covers the core needs for searching and retrieving reviews, plus a trial search, but feels slightly thin given the broader medical research domain. Still, each tool earns its place and the count is reasonable for a focused server.
The review lifecycle is complete (search and get detailed). However, clinical trial search returns only metadata with no way to retrieve full trial details, leaving a potential dead end for agents needing more information. The domain is also somewhat ambiguous since the server name focuses on reviews but includes trials, making coverage feel incomplete.