Cochrane Medical Reviews

search_reviews

Search Cochrane systematic reviews via PubMed.

Finds Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews articles matching
your query. Returns PubMed IDs, titles, and publication dates.
Use get_review_detail with a PMID to get the full abstract.

Args:
    query: Search terms for finding reviews (e.g. 'diabetes exercise',
        'hypertension treatment', 'childhood vaccination safety').
    limit: Maximum number of results to return (default 20, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the data source (PubMed/Cochrane), return fields (PubMed IDs, titles, publication dates), and limit cap (max 100). However, it does not describe search semantics like relevance ranking or error handling, leaving some behavioral details uncovered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, return info, a cross-reference, and an Args section. It is informative without being bloated, though the Args section could be slightly more compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers likely questions: what it searches, what it returns, and how to proceed to full abstracts. It lacks mention of pagination or result size beyond max, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only provides types and defaults, but the description enriches both parameters: query gets example search terms, and limit gets a max constraint and default value. This fully compensates for the lack of schema property descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search Cochrane systematic reviews via PubMed' and 'Finds Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews articles matching your query,' specifying verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on systematic reviews and directing follow-up to get_review_detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the user to 'Use get_review_detail with a PMID to get the full abstract,' providing a clear alternative for deeper lookup. It also includes example query formats, helping the agent understand appropriate search term usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Cochrane Medical Reviews tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?