Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OraFabric Medical Ontology Knowledge Base

by com.orafabric
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Resolve concept

resolve_concept
Read-onlyIdempotent

Match a name, abbreviation or synonym to standard concepts. Free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_concept"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name, abbreviation or synonym to resolve, as it appeared in the question. Do not normalise it first. 'HER2', 'ERBB2' and 'Her-2/neu' are all valid input.
typeNoRestrict to concepts of this kind. Set it when the name is ambiguous across kinds. 'CD20' is both a gene and a drug target, 'ALK' is a gene and a disease qualifier. Leave unset to see every kind.
limitNoHow many candidate concepts to return. Raise it when the name is a common abbreviation likely to collide; 5 is enough for a specific name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"How many candidate concepts to return. Raise it when the name is a common abbreviation likely to collide; 5 is enough for a specific name."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"The name, abbreviation or synonym to resolve, as it appeared in the question. Do not normalise it first. 'HER2', 'ERBB2' and 'Her-2/neu' are all valid input."
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Added value: +"Restrict to concepts of this kind. Set it when the name is ambiguous across kinds. 'CD20' is both a gene and a drug target, 'ALK' is a gene and a disease qualifier. Leave unset to see every kind."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact — that the call is 'Free' — but says nothing about behavior when no match is found or how ties among multiple candidates are ranked. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the cost note. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, has annotated safety and a fully documented schema, so the bar is modest. But with no output schema, the description is the only place to say what comes back (candidate concepts with identifiers and scores?) and what an empty result means, and it omits both.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter docs are unusually explicit (examples, when to set 'type', how to raise 'limit'). The description only restates the input kinds already listed in the schema, so it adds no meaning beyond it; the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('match') plus the resource ('name, abbreviation or synonym' to 'standard concepts'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'explore_concept' or 'check_relation', so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these to open first.

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?

Usage is only implied: resolve a raw term before doing something else with it. There is no explicit 'use this when / use the alternative when' routing against explore_concept or check_relation, and no stated precondition such as calling this before retrieve_evidence. The 'Free' note hints that cost should not deter calling it, which is a weak but real usage signal.

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

All OraFabric Medical Ontology Knowledge Base toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources