A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceEnables searching and retrieving biomedical literature from PubMed via the NCBI E-utilities API.
13
1
MIT
PubMed / MEDLINE Literature Search
by com.olyport
Server Details
Search biomedical literature, get article details, find related articles, and explore MeSH terms
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: find_related_articles finds similar papers, get_article_detail retrieves metadata, get_cited_by finds citations, search_mesh searches vocabulary, and search_pubmed performs general searches. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., find_related_articles, get_article_detail, search_pubmed). The naming is predictable and readable throughout, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for literature search and retrieval. Each tool earns its place by covering key workflows: searching, retrieving details, finding related/citing articles, and vocabulary support. This count is neither too sparse nor bloated for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core PubMed operations effectively: search, retrieve details, find related/citing articles, and vocabulary lookup. A minor gap is the lack of tools for advanced filtering (e.g., by date range or journal) or batch operations, but agents can work around this with query syntax.
Available Tools
5 toolsget_article_detailAInspect
Get full details of a PubMed article by its PMID.
Returns title, all authors, complete abstract, MeSH terms,
publication types, journal info, and DOI.
Args:
pmid: PubMed ID (e.g. '39142850').
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It lists the returned fields (title, authors, abstract, MeSH terms, publication types, journal info, DOI), giving a clear picture of what the tool outputs. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but this is implied by the nature of the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: two short sentences plus a parameter definition. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return value details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, retrieval operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It describes the input, the output fields, and the overall behavior. No additional context is necessary.
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 input schema provides no description for the 'pmid' parameter (0% coverage). The tool description compensates fully by defining the parameter and giving an example: 'pmid: PubMed ID (e.g. '39142850').' This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a PubMed article by its PMID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a PubMed article'), and references the input (PMID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_pubmed (which returns a list) or get_cited_by (which returns citations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving detailed information on a single article, but no when-not or direct comparison is provided. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cited_byAInspect
Find articles that cite a given PubMed article.
Useful for tracking the impact and follow-up research of a
key publication.
Args:
pmid: PubMed ID of the article to find citations for.
limit: Maximum citing articles to return (default 20, max 100).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmid | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns citing articles and documents the default and maximum limit. However, it does not specify behavior for edge cases (e.g., no citations found, empty results) or any constraints like rate limits or data freshness.
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 an Args section listing parameters. The first sentence is clear and direct. The second sentence ('Useful for tracking...') adds context but is slightly verbose; removing it would improve conciseness without loss of essential information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, one required), the description is adequate. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be detailed here. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that results are a list of articles or brief summary.
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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains pmid as 'PubMed ID of the article to find citations for' and limit with its default (20) and maximum (100). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Find articles that cite a given PubMed article.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like find_related_articles (which finds related articles, not citing ones) and get_article_detail (which retrieves detail for a specific article).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for tracking impact and follow-up research, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_related_articles for related articles, or search_pubmed for general searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_meshAInspect
Search the MeSH vocabulary for standardized medical terms.
Find MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) descriptors to use in
precise PubMed searches. Returns MeSH IDs, preferred terms,
and scope notes.
Args:
term: Search term (e.g. 'diabetes', 'heart failure', 'opioid').
limit: Maximum results (default 10).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns MeSH IDs, preferred terms, and scope notes, which is adequate for a search tool. However, it does not mention any potential rate limits, case sensitivity, or pagination, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three effective sentences plus an Args section. No redundant words, and the structure is logical: purpose, elaboration, then parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return values. It does not elaborate on edge cases or advanced usage, but that is acceptable for a focused 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear, human-readable explanations for both parameters: term with examples ('diabetes', 'heart failure') and limit with default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the basic schema types.
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 explicitly states the tool searches the MeSH vocabulary for standardized medical terms, with a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_pubmed by focusing on vocabulary retrieval rather than article searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that MeSH descriptors found are for use in precise PubMed searches, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, so it is slightly lacking in guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_pubmedAInspect
Search PubMed for biomedical literature.
Find research articles, reviews, and clinical studies matching your
search terms. Supports PubMed query syntax including MeSH terms,
field tags, and boolean operators.
Args:
query: Search terms (e.g. 'diabetes prevention exercise',
'breast cancer[MeSH] AND immunotherapy', 'COVID-19 vaccine efficacy').
limit: Maximum results (default 20, max 100).
sort: Sort order - 'relevance', 'date', or 'author' (default 'relevance').
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | relevance | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search capability but does not mention that the tool is read-only, or describe rate limits or authentication needs. The output schema covers return format, partially compensating.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear first line summary, followed by a detailed paragraph and a clean 'Args' section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with three parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, supported syntax, parameter details with defaults and constraints. It is complete.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: 'query' with multiple examples, 'limit' with default and max, and 'sort' with options. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
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 the tool searches PubMed for biomedical literature, specifying it finds research articles, reviews, and clinical studies. This differentiates it from siblings like find_related_articles, which focus on related content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to search biomedical literature) and supports PubMed query syntax with examples. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceEnables searching PubMed's biomedical literature database and retrieving article metadata, abstracts, and full content through the E-utilities API. Supports advanced queries, batch operations, and multiple output formats with automatic rate limiting.1
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceProvides access to NCBI's E-utilities, PubChem, and PMC APIs for searching and retrieving biomedical literature, chemical, and genomic data.
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceThis server enables searching PubMed articles, fetching metadata, and downloading PMC PDFs.4MIT