Fetch one full record by the id returned from search: the GRADE-rated evidence summary of an indication, or one study with its per-indication verdicts. Includes the source URL to cite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id from a search result |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by specifying that it returns exactly one full record, that the record type is either an indication summary or a study with per-indication verdicts, and that a source URL for citation is included. No contradiction with 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler: the core action, the input provenance, the possible record types, and the citation URL are all covered. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.
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?
With a single well-documented parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description is complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It also preempts confusion about which record type may be returned and provides the citation detail.
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 coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, and the schema description already says 'Id from a search result.' The description reinforces this same meaning but adds little new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one full record by the id returned from search'), and the two possible record types (GRADE-rated evidence summary or study with verdicts). This clearly differentiates it from the search and list siblings, and even from get_indication/get_study by emphasizing the unified id-based fetch.
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?
It tells the agent this tool is used with an id returned from search, implying it should be called after search rather than as a standalone query. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the id-from-search guidance is clear contextual usage direction.
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.
Search and list_indications are clearly distinct, but fetch overlaps with get_indication and get_study since it also retrieves a full record by ID. The descriptions help somewhat, but an agent could reasonably struggle to choose between the generic fetch and the more specific getters.
list_indications, get_indication, and get_study follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, but search and fetch are one-word verbs that break the convention. The mix is readable but not fully predictable.
Five tools is a well-scoped surface for a read-only evidence register. Each tool covers a necessary part of discovery and retrieval without unnecessary bloat.
The register's core workflow is covered: search across records, list indications, and retrieve detailed indication summaries or individual studies. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit list-studies endpoint, but search and fetch can fill that need in most cases.
